Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on April 26, 2015, 05:21:33 PM
-
a concession to the links courses he had studied in the UK ?
Given that CBM had the luxury of carving out almost any parcel of land that occupies the current NGLA/Sebonack site, why did he select that particular configuration ?
The location of the Shinnecock Inn might have had some influence, but the clear out and back linear routing would seem to indicate that CBM's attempt at replication extended beyond the individual hole designs.
-
He was a pretty big fan of the Old Course!
-
I think you really have a point there. Remember, the original starting point was out where the 10th tee is now. One played out to a hole finishing along the water (kind of like the Eden estuary, right) and then returned. The current 1st and 2nd holes would have represented a very interesting finesse type turn for home, same role as the 12th at TOC. As the original finisher, the Long hole was quite a different deal than TOC's 18th though. Would have been a great original sequence with the great holes 3-8 playing as 12-17!
-
Greg,
I believe that CBM always intended the course to play as it presently plays with the clubhouse occupying it's current location.
CBM had the luxury of picking out the land he wanted and he chose that particular out and back routing not dependent upon order of play.
-
Pat,
I asked that very question here many moons ago and of course I got trashed by the usual suspects. ;) My memory is fading with age but weren't you one of them? :)
-
You are correct, Mike, your memory is fading. That is not at all the question you asked.
-
You are correct, Mike, your memory is fading.
David,
Mike is the poster boy for revisionist history.
That is not at all the question you asked.
Correct again.
-
Once CBM decided to use the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse, the starting and ending point was determined. Whether he decided prior the location of today's clubhouse is speculation but if Pat is correct then with those two endpoints the general out and back routing was fait accompli.
-
Except that he originally had 450 acres to choose from and didn't narrow that down to the land he used until he had done a rough routing of the course.
Please lets not do this again. It has been covered to death in multiple threads.
-
Except that he originally had 450 acres to choose from and didn't narrow that down to the land he used until he had done a rough routing of the course.
Please lets not do this again. It has been covered to death in multiple threads.
Dave,
How much documentation of what CBM was thinking at the time exists? I don't recall getting that much from Scotland's Gift.
-
Pat - interesting that you used the word 'concession' instead of 'homage'' or 'testament to', but maybe I'm making too much of that word choice.
On a site near the water and sunject to (prevailing) winds, Is there anything more efficiently 'golfy' than to route the holes straight out and back? You almost automatically create a course that tests both directional control (with winds coming from left and right) and distance control (with winds coming from front and back).
Peter
-
Tim,
Actually CBM gets into it in some detail in SG, and there are contemporaneous accounts saying essentially the same thing. I really hesitate to get into it here because doing so will undoubtedly get Mike started again and we've dealt with his various NGLA conjectures too many times already. I'd recommend taking another look at SG, though, or if you are brave and or bored, searching out some of the old threads.
________________________
Peter, I think you are making too much out of the word choice. Read CBM's book and you'll see that he gladly and openly paid 'homage' and 'testament to' to the roots of the game. In fact, throughout his life, that was largely his point.
NGLA isn't exactly a straight out and back routing.
-
Dave Moriarty:
Thanks. Think I will go back to SG.
-
Macdonald certainly could have selected any 205 acres of the 450 acres available on the property but once he selected the Shinnecock Inn near the railroad as his clubhouse (starting and ending point) then if Patrick is correct that CBM always wanted to use today's clubhouse site over 1.3 miles away as the crow flies, then that by definition narrowed the possibilities.
However, if Patrick is somehow faulty in reading Macdonald's mind over a century later then I guess CBM could have gone anywhere among the 450 acres, although it is admittedly difficult to imagine hiim passing up the glorious views of Peconic Bay where today's starting and final holes (and clubhouse) are located.
Here's more from Macdonald in "Scotland's Gift".
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5179/5419366512_778e425aa7_z.jpg)
-
Tooshay, Mike. The routing was chosen to start and end at the Shinnecock Inn (by the 9th green and 10th tee of today). Unless, of course, one chooses to disagree with what the great man said in S's G=Me.
Oh Hell, I just have to add an emoticon ;). Sorry, Dan Kelly (tm)................
-
Ditto to what Rich wrote. CBM says "our first hole now is what was intended to be the tenth, and our eighteenth hole is what was intended to be the ninth."
So CBM did NOT intend to switch the nines. The fire, and moving the clubhouse site from near the Inn to its current location, caused him to flip the front and the back.
-
Patrick,
Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA a concession to the links courses he had studied in the UK ?
As per the other thread surely, in your view, the routing was a concession to the dictates of the site. ;D
BTW, it sounds like it was a "hostile" site being all brambles and bogs that required horseback riding to get around initially. Of course there were the "beautiful golfing vistas". And, after they built the clubhouse and renumbered the course to accommodate the clubhouse they had an "unexcelled site".
-
Rich, I don't think anyone ever denied that CBM wanted to start and end near the Inn, although the record strongly suggests that this was NOT the first was determination he made. I (and others) have written that it was the fire that caused the switch of the nines many, many times. But, by all descriptions the routing process began with the Alps hole, then the Redan, then other features fitting in with CBM's ideas (the Cape, the Eden, etc.)
So I am confused by Mike's analysis. Mike seems to be saying that because CBM wanted the course to start and end the course near the Shinnecock inn, he therefore was locked into one (and only one) particular out and back routing. Is the argument really that once a clubhouse location is determined, then the entire routing is set in stone? If so, this is silly.
In fact, CBM described the process in Scotland's Gift and in a number of articles at the time. He and Whigham rode the land, found some key land formations for certain key holes (the Alps, the Redan, the Eden, the Cape, etc.), worked out a rough routing, optioned the land, refined the routing, purchased the land, built the course.
-
Rich, I don't think anyone ever denied that CBM wanted to start and end near the Inn
Patrick said that above: "I believe that CBM always intended the course to play as it presently plays with the clubhouse occupying it's current location."
That's the main thing I got out of Mike's post: that CBM did NOT intend for the course to play as it does now.
-
Jim,
I think some people are coming into a discussion/argument that has been going on for years, and it is causing a bit of confusion.
One of Patrick's pet theories has long been that, while CBM did want the initial course to start and finish near the Shinnecock Inn, he also planned to eventually build a permanent clubhouse in the current location. While Patrick's theory is interesting and I guess possible, I've never seen facts that convince me that it is correct. (I've never been much interested in the debate myself, because as I said, I haven't seen facts to support it.)
My critique is of Mike's contention that starting and ending near the Shinnecock end made the rest of the routing "fait accompli." That makes no sense to me, and it directly conflicts with CBM's various descriptions of how he came up with the routing.
-
David,
I did not participate in past threads on the routing of NGLA. However, based on my very limited experience, I agree with your skepticism on the "fait accompli" theory.
Sand Ridge Golf Club near Cleveland is probably the only course where I had exposure to the early development thinking by the owner, project manager and the architect (Tom Fazio). This exposure included subjects such as clubhouse location and course routing.
While I didn't agree with the clubhouse location selection, once it was made there were still quite a few routing plans (>20) that were considered. More than that, while certain hole appeared in several of the proposed routing plans, there were really very different routings considered.
I don't claim a project or course like Sand Ridge compares in architectural importance as NGLA, obviously, but the point remains: most, if not all sites considered for development could easily offer several different routing alternatives.
Doubt there are many true "fait accompli" examples.
-
At this stage I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself poorly or if my statement is being purposefully misconstrued, but let me make it simple.
I did NOT say that once the Shinnecock Inn was selected for the clubhouse that the routing was fait accompli. In fact, virtually any of the 450 available acres could have still been used.
I DID say that once the Shinnecock Inn was selected for the clubhouse and if Patrick is correct that CBM intended the clubhouse to be in its present location all along then the general out and back routing was fait accompli.
This is not difficult. Really. ::)
That CBM would have found it desirable to head 1.3 miles down to the bluffs over the Peconic Bay for drama, beauty, and compelling landforms should hardly surprise anyone, however.
-
Once CBM decided to use the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse, the starting and ending point was determined. Whether he decided prior the location of today's clubhouse is speculation but if Pat is correct then with those two endpoints the general out and back routing was fait accompli.
Mike,
Not at all.
If you have a spot behind the current 9th green as your starting and ending point it does NOT dictate an out and back routing.
You have the entire property NGLA/Sebonack at your disposal for routing.
CBM had the luxury of being able to select whatever land he wanted for his course.
The starting and ending point are merely that, and as such they don't dictate an out and back routing.
My premise dictates an out and back routing.
-
Ditto to what Rich wrote. CBM says "our first hole now is what was intended to be the tenth, and our eighteenth hole is what was intended to be the ninth."
So CBM did NOT intend to switch the nines. The fire, and moving the clubhouse site from near the Inn to its current location, caused him to flip the front and the back.
Jim,
I would disagree.
The fire was irrelevant.
The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.
CBM wouldn't site his clubhouse in the shadow of the clubhouse of a club that he was just thrown out of.
The donut hole between the current 1st and 18th hole didn't happen by accident, it happened by design because that's where CBM always intended his clubhouse.
In addition, NGLA did NOT own the land behind the current 9th green, hence CBM could never site his clubhouse there.
-
Mike, "the general out and back routing" was not "fait accompli." Unless what you mean by "fait accompli" is that, if we accept Patrick's premise, then the golf course probably would, at some point, go somewhere in the vicinity of the location of the Inn and somewhere in the vicinity of the location of the current clubhouse.
But if that is what you are trying to say, then you aren't really saying much of anything at all. Even here, there would be plenty of potential for variability. I don't even think Patrick has suggested that the future clubhouse was necessarily planned to be on that exact spot, nor is there any indication that it was extremely important to CBM to be right next to the Inn. (Why would he care if, as patrick speculates, the arrangement was temporary?)
Regardless, I think this sort of hypothetical does little but distract from what actually happened. CBM found the golf holes based on the land formations, and routed the course accordingly. That the hotel fit in to the plan was terrific, but it is misleading to portray it as the driving force behind the routing. And it is also seems disingenuous for your to adopt Patrick's theory for the purposes your argument, given your past positions.
-
Jim,
I think some people are coming into a discussion/argument that has been going on for years, and it is causing a bit of confusion.
One of Patrick's pet theories has long been that, while CBM did want the initial course to start and finish near the Shinnecock Inn, he also planned to eventually build a permanent clubhouse in the current location. While Patrick's theory is interesting and I guess possible, I've never seen facts that convince me that it is correct. (I've never been much interested in the debate myself, because as I said, I haven't seen facts to support it.)
David,
The facts supporting my premise are that NGLA did NOT own the land behind the current 9th green, hence the clubhouse could never be sited at that location. The use of the Shinnecock Inn was a temporary alternative borne of financial necessity.
My critique is of Mike's contention that starting and ending near the Shinnecock end made the rest of the routing "fait accompli." That makes no sense to me, and it directly conflicts with CBM's various descriptions of how he came up with the routing.
-
Patrick, I remember the argument. I am just not convinced. No use getting back into it, as it has been covered it thoroughly and repeatedly before.
-
At this stage I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself poorly or if my statement is being purposefully misconstrued, but let me make it simple.
I did NOT say that once the Shinnecock Inn was selected for the clubhouse that the routing was fait accompli.
In fact, virtually any of the 450 available acres could have still been used.
Agreed
I DID say that once the Shinnecock Inn was selected for the clubhouse and if Patrick is correct that CBM intended the clubhouse to be in its present location all along then the general out and back routing was fait accompli.
Not necessarily in the linear form the current routing takes.
CBM could have used a more circuitous rout.
But, once he found the Redan and Eden, I think the die was cast.
This is not difficult. Really. ::)
That CBM would have found it desirable to head 1.3 miles down to the bluffs over the Peconic Bay for drama, beauty, and compelling landforms should hardly surprise anyone, however.
Except that he could have come right up the gut of Sebonack's site to the bluff.
I think the discovery of the Redan and the Eden, along with some of other holes determined the routing.
-
Patrick,
Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA a concession to the links courses he had studied in the UK ?
As per the other thread surely, in your view, the routing was a concession to the dictates of the site. ;D
Correct
BTW, it sounds like it was a "hostile" site being all brambles and bogs that required horseback riding to get around initially.
It was
Of course there were the "beautiful golfing vistas". And, after they built the clubhouse and renumbered the course to accommodate the clubhouse they had an "unexcelled site".
Bryan,
Have some one explain the difference between "before" and "after" to you.
Or did you forget about the 10,000 truckloads of dirt they had to import to convert a hostile site into a superior site.
-
Pat - interesting that you used the word 'concession' instead of 'homage'' or 'testament to', but maybe I'm making too much of that word choice.
On a site near the water and sunject to (prevailing) winds, Is there anything more efficiently 'golfy' than to route the holes straight out and back? You almost automatically create a course that tests both directional control (with winds coming from left and right) and distance control (with winds coming from front and back).
Peter,
Is that what happened at Sebonack, Maidstone and Seminole ?😀😀😀
Peter
-
Patrick
I've no real side in this discussion but do find it interesting. In particular interested in your last few posts. In one you talk about the Redan and Eden holes being found and in another post you talk about 10,000 truckloads of dirt being used for the course. Given there was that much construction going on (as opposed to using the lay of the land) do you not think that "finding" these two holes would have been a secondary consideration when deciding the routing as after all being par 3's they would have been just as easy to build from scratch, no ?
I confess it's been a while since I read Scotlands Gift but does MacDonald cover it in that ?
Niall
-
Mike,
The more I think about it the more I think that the Shinnecock Inn was a convenience, not an anchor point in the design and routing.
Today, we're all more familiar with the general site (405 acres) because of the introduction of Sebonack.
I think most would agree that the site at Sebonack is exceptional as is the site at NGLA.
So, given that you had all 405 acres at your disposal, why choose the out and back routing that CBM chose ?
I don't think, not even for a minute, that the location of the Shinnecock Inn was the linchpin to the routing.
The title of CBM's book is "Scotland's Gift", not the "U.K's Gift"
I believe that embedded in the recesses of CBM's brain were the out and back routings he encountered in his travels.
A linear routing, and that that linear routing was reinforced and more or less dictated by linchpin holes he discovered like the Redan, Alps, Eden, Cape, Bottle and others.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it............ For now !
-
Patrick,
I'm not sure I agree with you that the present clubhouse was predetermined by CBM from the outset and even though you believe that the use of the Shinnecock Inn was merely a convenience, the fact is that his use of that building as his initial clubhouse did predetermine the initial starting and ending points for his routing.
That being said, it's tough to imagine him not wanting to use the bluff over the Peconic Bay and I agree that he could have traversed into the Sebonack property to achieve that end, but wouldn't that have been a fairly lengthy uphill climb from the clubhouse (Shinnecock Inn?) during the latter part of the outbound nine which may have been a bit of a slog?. Even if he decided on using the land of Sebonack, the distance (almost a mile and a half) from the Shinnecock Inn to the bluff over the Peconic would have necessitated an out-and-back routing, no?
Irrespective, I do agree with you that his earlier locating of the Alps, redan, Eden and I think also most importantly, his Cape hole dictated the general direction of his routing towards the eastern side of the available land.
I also think CBM agrees with us both on that one, so we have that going for us. ;)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5126/5370317384_2e3b4032b6_z.jpg)
I do find it interesting that CBM created a "donut hole" to use your words between today's 1 and 18 from the start, but I'm not sure it was to accommodate a clubhouse and parking lot. Certainly riding 18 along the edge of the bluff was a nice choice and it's tough to imagine better landforms than those he chose to utilize on 1.
This 1908 drawing, the first published after the routing was completed, shows the donut hole, but conceivably other spaces as well where CBM might have located his clubhouse.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/maps/Aug26_1907_DailyEagle_diagram.jpg)
-
Mike,
I hesitate to enter the debate, but in any case, I don't think your theory or Patrick's are either cast in stone and black and white.
I am sure CBM looked for natural land forms and was cognizant of the need to leave land for residential and clubhouse as that was part of his program, even if he did have the flexibility to pick the best for golf. It is possible/probable that he considered both to one degree or another, not all black and white, even if he did obviously favor golf.
As to how much the design criteria required an out and back, I will offer this, based on Pat's clubhouse theory - if it was a 6000 yard course (approx.) and the Inn and final clubhouse were about 3000 yards apart, then a linear routing was pretty much dictated. If it is 2000 yards between the two sites, then he may have had more flexibility. In fact, he would have had to have put more donuts in to get the routing to both places.
Of course, he could have left that prime donut that become the clubhouse for real estate, one prime, million dollar lot. Who knows, really.
-
Jeff,
All good points and it was about 2,500 yards (as the crow flies) from the Shinnecock Inn to today's clubhouse, another 150 to the edge of the bluff.
I completely understand your hesitation in entering this discussion but thank you for weighing in anyway. ;)
-
Niall,
Patrick is mistaken about the purpose of the 10,000 truckloads of dirt. It wasn't for construction purposes, it was topsoil so they could grow grass. CBM is explicit about this. As for construction vs. lay of the land, CBM writes of finding a number of holes before the land was even secured, including the Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape, and Punchbowl.
Have you been to NGLA? Surely there was some construction (especially on certain green sites) but the layout also incorporates a number of incredible "lay of the land" features and it is quite apparent that the routing was tailored to take advantage of these many features.
_____________________________________
Jeff,
There was never a "residential" component on this parcel. In in a 1904 letter, CBM had offered a hypothetical about how his proposed club might work, and he mentioned the possibility of divvying up extra land for member's residences. That language got repeated a few times in early newspaper reports about the formation of NGLA, but when it came to securing this site CBM tailored the boundaries around the golf course and there was little room left over for anything else (except for the yacht basin.) If you look at the early plans and consider the property border, you'll see that there was no room for residential.
_______________________________________
Mike,
I don't think that the advantage of being near Shinnecock Inn necessitated that the course start and end in the exact spot of the current 10th green/9th tee, especially because they originally contemplated a locker/shower house at the start/finish of the course. Surely they wanted to start finish somewhere convenient to the Inn, but there is a lot of potential flexibility in that desire. As Jeff points out, starting even a bit closer to the bluff (or finishing a bit further from it) would change the calculation.
-
Sorry to join late Pat, but I totally agree. I was out there over the weekend and I honestly didn't think twice about the routing being a homage to the out and back courses overseas like North Berwick and others.
Glad we agree! LOL
Mark
-
Jeff,
Regarding the "residential" component, it's difficult to tell when and why that plan fell off the table. I think it's probably best to read exactly what CBM wrote and everyone can form their own opinions.
Here's the relevant section from his 1904 "...Original Agreement Signed by the Founders".
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4149/5393591317_453fabf519_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5174/5394188704_6232559b87_z.jpg)
(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4152/5393591445_f821ba036a_z.jpg)
CBM attached this copy of the Original Agreement to a January 1912 letter "To the Founders of the National Golf Links of America". The relevant section is under the section titled 'Surplus Land" on Page 3 below.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4138/5393591069_336ec66aaa_z.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5092/5394188438_daaaed8d87_z.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4100/5393591181_1ebcc650fa_z.jpg)
-
It is not that hard to know when the "residential component" fell off the table. It was never on the table for this particular parcel. Look at the maps. There was no place for a "residential component" within the land CBM secured. The land was tailored to the CBM's need for the golf course, not for potentially divvying up the left over land to the members.
-
I had a few minutes of free time so I thought I'd figure out what CBM would have been able to cover with all that topsoil.
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05/MackAB_2500.jpg)
A dump truck from 1915, about 30 horsepower w/a top speed of around 15 mph, I'd guess a capacity of 2 or 3 yards of soil. Probably even less of a motor/top speed/capacity in 1906.
10k truckloads of soil @ 3 yards per truck = 30k yards which, when spread out in a 2" layer, will cover ca. 111 acres of land.
-
Agreed about the truckloads being for bringing in topsoil as much of the land was depleted. Even after this initial attempt they went through some lean agronomic times, completely losing the greens during grow-in, and I suspect they had to do even more to eventually get good turf growth across the property.
Besides, the cuts and fills are fairly obvious out there, and I'm pretty sure that was done with native soil, not imported.
-
Niall,
Patrick is mistaken about the purpose of the 10,000 truckloads of dirt. It wasn't for construction purposes, it was topsoil so they could grow grass.
David,
I'm not mistaken, I'm correct.
I never stated that the 10,000 truckloads were for construction, that's your conclusion.
I stated that the 10,000 truckloads were to convert a "hostile" site into a "superior" site.
I'd say that not being able to grow grass is indicative of a hostile site
CBM is explicit about this.
I'm well aware of that.
As for construction vs. lay of the land, CBM writes of finding a number of holes before the land was even secured, including the Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape, and Punchbowl.
I indicated that finding those holes was "a" if not "the" factor in determining the routing.
Have you been to NGLA?
On occasion
Surely there was some construction (especially on certain green sites) but the layout also incorporates a number of incredible "lay of the land" features and it is quite apparent that the routing was tailored to take advantage of these many features.
I stated that
_____________________________________
Jeff,
There was never a "residential" component on this parcel. In in a 1904 letter, CBM had offered a hypothetical about how his proposed club might work, and he mentioned the possibility of divvying up extra land for member's residences. That language got repeated a few times in early newspaper reports about the formation of NGLA, but when it came to securing this site CBM tailored the boundaries around the golf course and there was little room left over for anything else (except for the yacht basin.) If you look at the early plans and consider the property border, you'll see that there was no room for residential.
_______________________________________
Mike,
I don't think that the advantage of being near Shinnecock Inn necessitated that the course start and end in the exact spot of the current 10th green/9th tee, especially because they originally contemplated a locker/shower house at the start/finish of the course. Surely they wanted to start finish somewhere convenient to the Inn, but there is a lot of potential flexibility in that desire. As Jeff points out, starting even a bit closer to the bluff (or finishing a bit further from it) would change the calculation.
-
Patrick
I've no real side in this discussion but do find it interesting. In particular interested in your last few posts. In one you talk about the Redan and Eden holes being found and in another post you talk about 10,000 truckloads of dirt being used for the course. Given there was that much construction going on (as opposed to using the lay of the land) do you not think that "finding" these two holes would have been a secondary consideration when deciding the routing as after all being par 3's they would have been just as easy to build from scratch, no ?
Niall,
No, because those weren't the only holes he discovered, and the series of holes he discovered led to the linear nature of the routing.
I confess it's been a while since I read Scotlands Gift but does MacDonald cover it in that ?
Niall
-
Patrick,
I'm not sure I agree with you that the present clubhouse was predetermined by CBM from the outset and even though you believe that the use of the Shinnecock Inn was merely a convenience, the fact is that his use of that building as his initial clubhouse did predetermine the initial starting and ending points for his routing.
Mike,
Not at all.
The starting and ending points are where the sit today.
The Shinnecock Inn was a default point.
You forget that the only reason that CBM didn't build the clubhouse is that he didn't have the money to build a clubhouse.
He found the holes and routed the course FIRST, and used the Shinnecock Inn as a temporary convenience.
That being said, it's tough to imagine him not wanting to use the bluff over the Peconic Bay and I agree that he could have traversed into the Sebonack property to achieve that end, but wouldn't that have been a fairly lengthy uphill climb from the clubhouse (Shinnecock Inn?) during the latter part of the outbound nine which may have been a bit of a slog?. Even if he decided on using the land of Sebonack, the distance (almost a mile and a half) from the Shinnecock Inn to the bluff over the Peconic would have necessitated an out-and-back routing, no?
Not in such a direct linear fashion
Irrespective, I do agree with you that his earlier locating of the Alps, redan, Eden and I think also most importantly, his Cape hole dictated the general direction of his routing towards the eastern side of the available land.
The "discovery" of those holes cast the die for the routing
I also think CBM agrees with us both on that one, so we have that going for us. ;)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5126/5370317384_2e3b4032b6_z.jpg)
I do find it interesting that CBM created a "donut hole" to use your words between today's 1 and 18 from the start, but I'm not sure it was to accommodate a clubhouse and parking lot. Certainly riding 18 along the edge of the bluff was a nice choice and it's tough to imagine better landforms than those he chose to utilize on 1.
This 1908 drawing, the first published after the routing was completed, shows the donut hole, but conceivably other spaces as well where CBM might have located his clubhouse.
Absolutely not.
You're looking at a two dimensional map and ignoring the topography, topography that would preclude the siting of a clubhouse, pro shop and parking lot. The clubhouse as always intended for it's present site, especially since NGLA did NOT own the land behind the present 9th green
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/maps/Aug26_1907_DailyEagle_diagram.jpg)
-
Just so we aren't putting out too much misinformation, please note that the map above was first published on August 27, 1907 (not 1908), during construction of the course. While this was technically (and obviously) "after the routing was completed," various descriptions indicated that some routing had been in place since the fall 1906.
-
My mistake, I was going from memory and that drawing of the initial routing was indeed from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, August 26th, 1907 who announced on that day, "Two weeks ago the Eagle printed a general description of the ideal golf links, now under construction at Shinnecock Hills, Long Island, by the National Golf Club of America. It is now possible to give an official map of the course, which shows it exactly as it will appear except that several additional bunkers are yet to be added at points not yet determined."
As to the question of whether CBM proposed housing on the site in question, he not only mentioned it in 1904 and again in 1912, but he also mentioned it to the press on the day the land sale was announced as quoted below in a December 15th, 1906 New York news article.
I think these contemporaneous articles are very good in that they show the wonderfully detailed and meticulous process that Macdonald went through to ensure that his Ideal golf course was a great one.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8716/16691032973_ee694cfd7b_z.jpg)
-
A parcel "4 acres in width and 2 miles long?" Mixing area and length units. I wonder what that really meant to say? The width of 4 square acres, as in about 840 feet (4 x 210 feet?)
-
The following map shows the boundaries of the 205 acres of the property as well as the land used for golf. While hardly ideal from a golf standpoint, I'm thinking a modern architect could locate cabins, homesites, etc. on multiple places across the property if that's what was desired.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
-
CBM famously routed Chicago golf with OB on the hook side, to accommodate his slice. I never noted that NGLA has more OB (although it has a buffer) and hazards on the slice side! He must have really liked the landforms to do it that way.....
-
Either that or he had cultivated a nice draw with the new Haskell balls by that point in his career. ;)
-
As to the question of whether CBM proposed housing on the site in question, he not only mentioned it in 1904 and again in 1912, but he also mentioned it to the press on the day the land sale was announced as quoted below in a December 15th, 1906 New York news article.
Sigh. The 1912 CBM letter made no "mention" of "proposed housing on the site" and CBM is NOT QUOTED in the Dec. 15th, 1906 newspaper about any proposed housing on that site! We have been through this repeatedly.
Starting with your excerpt from the much longer December 15, 1906 NY Sun article:
The first five paragraphs in your excerpt are reportedly from an extended quote apparently taken from a "notice sent to subscribers" about the purchase. In that quote CBM made clear that NGLA WILL NOT BE PROVIDING HOUSING FOR MEMBERS: "We are not going into the hash or bed business." He also pointed out that there were other convenient lodging and housing options in the area: "A modern inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests. There are sites available for houses, and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay." The "inn" was the Shinnecock Inn (which would burn down) and "sites available for houses" were in the giant residential property development which was being launched by the interests from whom NGLA purchased the land. (CBM and many of the founders purchased nearby land and/or lots and built mansions.)
However, the last two paragraphs in your excerpt are not in quotations and are NOT part of that extended quote. Rather, they are a near verbatim summary of portions of the 1904 letter. In other words, the article is written using some old information from 1904 (the bits about bonds, the proposed initiation fees, the hypothetical housing scheme, etc.) and some new information from late 1906 (NGLA will purchase this site, NGLA is not in the housing business, etc.) Quite obviously, the new information trumps the old information.
Turning to the 1912 CBM letter to the members:
Again, contrary to your claim, there is no mention of a "proposed housing on the site." The letter does mention surplus land, but it doesn't say how much or identify it in any way, and it definitely DOES NOT SAY THAT IT WILL BE DIVVIED UP FOR HOUSING. It says nothing about housing at all. NGLA did not having a "housing component" and there was never any "proposed housing on the site."
As for your claim that there was room for "cabins, homesites, etc. on multiple places across the property," I wish you were kidding but you probably aren't. Forget about what modern architects would do, as some of those clowns would put houses anywhere. Where, specifically, would CBM have put homesites on that property in 1907? And when answering keep in mind that you where you have houses you need roads, utilities, etc. So where was this "housing component" to be?
- On the exterior of the course, the only area not being used for golf is the area to the right of 16 and 17, but I thought that this land was low-lying wasteland, not the type of land one used for residential development in 1907.
- As for the interior of the course, you've been to NGLA. Honestly, are there any places between holes conducive to a housing project? I can think of none.
- So, if CBM was planning on a residential component, then why isn't there a residential component? Were his dreams unfulfilled, or was he not in the housing business?
- If there was a residential component on site, why would CBM (and many of the other founders) have purchased nearby lots/and or land around this same time?
Remember just recently how you started a thread on how you cannot take everything in every newspaper article at 100 percent face value, and that you have to look at the totality of the sources and information? Well this is one of those cases. You've taken a mention in a 1906 article summarizing a 1904 article and tried to turn that into some sort of definite directive. But the totality of the facts indicate that there never was a residential component planned for this land!
_____________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
We (Bryan and I) have tried to figure out the weird (4 acres X 2 mile) dimensions in the past. I think I guessed about the same as you; that it meant the width of 4 square acres (209 ft x 4.) If I've done my math correctly, on a205 acre rectangular strip with one side measuring 2 miles, the other side would measure 845.625 feet. So it would be pretty close to that.
Regardless, I think we are just talking about a rough approximation.
-
I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in the past threads but I cannot find it. When was the tee on #8 moved from the left of #7 to the right? I know there was a mention of a left tee in George Bahto's book and the 1908 drawing has the tee to the left, but the picture posted later in this thread has it to the right. We went over to that area and looked last year and could not find even the remnants of a tee amidst the fescue, but it would be a cool tee shot.
-
The following map shows the boundaries of the 205 acres of the property as well as the land used for golf. While hardly ideal from a golf standpoint, I'm thinking a modern architect could locate cabins, homesites, etc. on multiple places across the property if that's what was desired.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
Mike,
Perhaps some of the confusion lies in whether the NGLA boundary on that map is all within the white area in the polygon bounding box, or whether the actual boundary is the rendered area? Obviously there is some, but not a lot of room in the rendered areas, but if the outline box is the boundary (unlikely, since it covers some of the bay) then there would be a lot.
Even so, CBM seemingly mentioned the housing for members later, but seems that it was never really in the plan or was dropped very early. I really don't need to discuss the semantic differences between never and very early. I think we can all agree he made the right choice!
What is the source of those pasted pages? I gave your post cred because I presumed it was clippings from Scotland's Gift, printed later. I would presume CBM wouldn't be so lazy as to just republish now outdated material. Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
The white area was definitely not included in the original 205 acre purchase.
The material Mike posted is from a January 4, 1912 private publication titled National Golf Links of America: Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald. That Statement contained an Appendix with a "Copy of original agreement signed by the Founders" which was a letter agreement written by 1904 by CBM when he was soliciting members.
The 1904 letter agreement contains a 'for instance' about splitting up surplus real estate, if that is what the founders choose to do: "Assuming that we buy 200 acres, it would take about 110 acres to lay out the golf course proper, and five acres for a clubhouse and accessories. We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground in fee simple." The letter agreement also noted, "This is simply a suggestion. The details can be worked out later."
But that was 1904. When CBM found the land in mid to late 1906, the golf course took up around 90% of the land he secured. In fact, the boundary of his purchase was tailored to his needs for the golf course. (Thus the close border all along the Western portion of the property.) So whatever piecemeal surplus land was left over, it wasn't appropriate for housing for the founders.
-
I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in the past threads but I cannot find it. When was the tee on #8 moved from the left of #7 to the right? I know there was a mention of a left tee in George Bahto's book and the 1908 drawing has the tee to the left, but the picture posted later in this thread has it to the right. We went over to that area and looked last year and could not find even the remnants of a tee amidst the fescue, but it would be a cool tee shot.
Adam, I know it has been discussed but I can't remember where either. The map Mike posted is from an early scorecard and is contained in the same Statement of CBM I mentioned above, published in January 1912. So I assume that it was the scorecard in use for 1911 and possibly beforehand. So if the tee was ever built to the left, it apparently had been changed sometime between 1907 (the real date of the stick routing) and 1911.
This touches on something that I don't think has ever really been discussed. Early accounts of the course suggest that the current 9th hole (not the 8th) was supposed to be the bottle hole. But it doesn't seem to have been built that way. Perhaps CBM changed his mind about the 8th and 9th holes during construction.
-
A parcel "4 acres in width and 2 miles long?" Mixing area and length units. I wonder what that really meant to say? The width of 4 square acres, as in about 840 feet (4 x 210 feet?)
An acre used to be defined as the amount of land that could be plowed in a single day with oxen, or actually, what could be done by midday, since refueling took all afternoon (the oxen had to be put out to pasture). That was further defied as 4 x 40 rods which translates to 22 yards x 220 yards. Using either of those as widths and multiplied by 4 doesn't really work. A perfect square acre on the other hand would be about 70 yards by 70 yards. A 4 acre width would then be 280 yards which is about what most of the NGLA site is.
The 2 miles long measurement can only be achieved by following a line down the centre of the routing and going out to the par 3 in Bullhead Bay and back again.
The area of a rectangle of 280 yards by 2 miles would be about 205 acres. I suppose CBM might have used this simplistic description to convey the image of a long and narrow site. In reality it is not rectangular, nor is it linear.
In the following map, 205 acres would be the area of the shaded part.
One article says they only had a quarter mile of frontage on Peconic Bay which would be about the length of the current 18th hole. The shoreline along the NGLA and Sebonack sites is around a mile long. I guess the inland features were more important to CBM than using the waterfront to the fullest extent possible. I wonder if owners and architects today would make the same decision?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
-
Jeff,
I'm going to be out of town for a few days and only have a moment now but did want to answer your question briefly.
EVERY major newspaper in NYC reported CBM's announcement of securing 205 of 450 acres in mid-December 1906. The one I posted quoted Macdonald directly as David notes above.
Every one of those newspapers stated that there was intended to be a real estate component in the land acquisition. Every one of those papers stated that the golf holes would be determined over the next several months and that latitude had been given by the sellers as regards the boundaries. If you'd like, I could post them all again when I return after the weekend, but I'm not sure that would do much here.
Ask yourself, why would all of those newspapers independently report erroneously on something that had been sent to potential founders over 2 years prior? Does that make any sense? Why would CBM himself refer to the "Surplus Land" six years later if that wasn't the intention all along?
Once again the we're being told that CBM quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired somehow means he didnt intend for there to be houses on the property he acquired. ;)
Yes, CBM didn't want his club to get into running a boarding house, or a resort, or a restaurant, and they were going to use the Shinnecock Inn for lodging. But that's not the same as private houses that individual members could buy as was his clear intent, and repeated again that day in 1906, was it?
Again, we don't know at what point CBM realized that he wanted to use much more of the land for golf than the original 110 acres he projected. Perhaps once he decided that every hole needed alternate routes provided? That would make some sense. Perhaps he never really intended that all along and only mentioned it as an enticement. Again we don't know.
But I think it's silly to look at facts like the first publishing of a routing in August 1907 and tell us that all of this was nailed down by December 1906 when every factual contemporaneous artifact tells us something quite different indeed.
-
Bryan,
How much of the shoreline of Peconic Bay could CBM have realistically used once he determined that he needed to use the Shinnecock Inn, about 1.4 miles away, as his clubhouse due to financial considerations? Not to take anything away from his use of internal landforms which is superb but I don't think he had much choice to use more of that bluff and still get home in 18 holes.
-
Mike,
Thanks, but no need to post. I only answered a question about the linear routing initially, and as stated, have no need to argue whether long ago articles say the plan was dropped early, or never meant to be. Seriously, with what we know, it could go either way, as with so many of these things.
I will say that even in the shaded area, there is still a bit of land left over by 17 that would be accessible to the entry road and suitable for some small cottages (if not a swamp, and its been 15 years since I have been there).
Certainly not the amount of members housing/and originally contemplated in total acres, but some, which CBM mentioned in 1912. It is possible the intent was still there during routing, but he just ended up taking more land for his perfect golf course than he planned and sacrificed the cabin component in favor of the golf course, which makes perfect sense when contemplating the ideal golf course, no?
That is all the mental energy I care to expand on the subject at this point.
-
Jeff,
Yes and it's what the contemporaneous records suggest.
-
Mike has repeatedly claimed that in December 1906, CBM was "quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired."
Can Mike or anyone else produce any of these quotations?
I don't think any such quotations exist, but I await proof indicating otherwise.
Mike's recent post is misleading in other regards as well, but let's start here for now.
(This is all very frustrating because it has been covered so many times before. I guess we should all be happy that Mike is no longer arguing that the 450 acre parcel was somewhere near the Shinnecock Canal, but this seems small consolation.)
_________________________________________________
Jeff,
You suggest that the land next to 17 may have been "suitable for small cottages" if it wasn't a swamp or otherwise inhospitable. It seems like planning such "cottages" would have been in direct contradiction to CBM's statement that NGLA wasn't going to get into the bed business. Also you mention this land is accessible via the entry road. The original entry road was more inland, to the left of 15-17.
You indicate that CBM mentioned the possibility of housing in 1912. I don't believe this is correct. Can you point out exactly where CBM mentioned housing in 1912?
-
Mike,
Thanks, but no need to post. I only answered a question about the linear routing initially, and as stated, have no need to argue whether long ago articles say the plan was dropped early, or never meant to be. Seriously, with what we know, it could go either way, as with so many of these things.
I will say that even in the shaded area, there is still a bit of land left over by 17 that would be accessible to the entry road and suitable for some small cottages (if not a swamp, and its been 15 years since I have been there).
Jeff,
That's pretty steep terrain for siting cottages, don't you think.
Certainly not the amount of members housing/and originally contemplated in total acres, but some, which CBM mentioned in 1912. It is possible the intent was still there during routing, but he just ended up taking more land for his perfect golf course than he planned and sacrificed the cabin component in favor of the golf course, which makes perfect sense when contemplating the ideal golf course, no?
That is all the mental energy I care to expand on the subject at this point.
-
I have been sifting through some old threads on the matter, but I was wondering if anyone could show me on a map where the old Shinnecock Inn was sited? It sounds as if it was close enough to the LIRR to have the fire attributed to sparks from the trains, but that seems to be a good distance from the ninth green.
-
A few more things to ponder.
Mike refuses to believe that the information about the supposed real estate component could have come from the 1904 Agreement. He encourages us to ask . . .
Ask yourself, why would all of those newspapers independently report erroneously on something that had been sent to potential founders over 2 years prior? Does that make any sense?
Yes it does make sense, and the reason really pretty simple. The information in the Dec. 15 NY Sun article (and other following articles, either directly or indirectly) came from the "notice" CBM had sent to subscribers to collect on their subscriptions pursuant to the 1904 Agreement. "Please pay to the order of Mr. James A. Stillman your subscription of $1000 as one of the founders of the National golf course." Given that money was owed pursuant the the 1904 agreement, he must have sent a copy the 1904 Agreement along with the notice/letter.
The proof of this is in the various articles which reported on the event. They contain information directly from the 1904 agreement. Here is one such article written from information picked up off a wire feed and printed by the Witchita Searchlight on Jan. 19, 1907.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/19070119%20NGLA%20witchitasrchlght.jpg)
Note that the first few paragraphs track the information from the December 1906 CBM communication, but the remainder is straight out of the 1904 Agreement.
Starting with "Golfers conversant with the courses abroad . . . " the information in the article is lifted directly from the 1904 Agreement. It tracks perfectly, even the bit about making the payment "in the spirit of advancing the sport" and the parts about only needing 110 acres to build the course and having enough land left over for every founder to have a 1 1/2 acre lot! Obviously the 1904 Agreement was the source, just as it was obviously the source of the references in the Sun article and the other articles. The newspapers assumed that the 1904 'for instance' about the 1 1/2 acre plots for each founder would apply to the NGLA land, but they were obviously mistaken. As CBM said, NGLA was not in the bed business. The founders could buy their lots elsewhere, just as did CBM himself.
Because it is his wont, Mike will most likely continue denying that the 1904 letter was the source. Or he will argue that CBM must have still believed the information - and even the hypothetical - in the 1904 Agreement. But neither of these theories can stand. Even by CBM's description of the parcel as of December 1906, there was no way that NGLA would fit on 110 acres, and there is no way there was enough land for each founder to take 1 1/2 acres in fee simple.
In short, the newspapers did the same thing Mike is doing now. They mistakenly assumed that the 1904 Agreement contained CBM's specific plan for the NGLA parcel. It didn't. Rather it contained a 'for instance' that never came to fruition.
-
I have been sifting through some old threads on the matter, but I was wondering if anyone could show me on a map where the old Shinnecock Inn was sited? It sounds as if it was close enough to the LIRR to have the fire attributed to sparks from the trains, but that seems to be a good distance from the ninth green.
Nigel,
It was across the street and offset from the road, making it doubtful that the fire was a product of a passing train.
More than likely, a kitchen fire was the culprit.
I believe that one of the old threads detailed the cause.
-
David,
With Mike Cirba citing all of these newspaper articles, do you think that he's finally come to accept the newspaper articles detailing H.J. Whigham's eulogy to CBM, the one where he stated that Charles Blair Macdonald routed/designed Merion ?
-
Nigel,
Here is an overlay I did back when Mike was arguing that the course was supposed to be a few miles to the west.
The location of the Shinnecock Inn is marked on the overlay.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-Overlay-1907crop.jpg?t=1299873957)
-
Thanks David.
-
I have a few minutes this morning and I have to chuckle a bit in reading what's been written since my last post. Patrick seems intent in holding onto his belief (aka idealistic fantasy ;)) that CBM and Whigham routed NGLA in 2 days on horseback (because the ground was so overgrown as to be impenetrable on foot) and snap, bam, boom, 205 acres were purchased and a classic was born! :)
The real story is much more interesting and much more involved and even the syndicated 1907 Wichita newspaper story that David produced here (wondering why one of the several New York first-hand stories weren't reproduced...perhaps if there's interest I'll post them all here next week when time permits) states that Travis, Emmet, Whigham, and Macdonald will spend the next several months laying out the course after which a model will be made, presumably to guide the subsequent construction efforts.
And yes, that particular article seems taken directly from the wording of CBM's solicitation letter to the Founders that he originally distributed in 1904. All this really tells us is that nothing at all had changed from CBM's original plan to purchase 200 or so acres of which he estimated needing about 110 acres for golf and the rest for housing lots available to the Founders. His plans changed after this, either during the routing or construction processes. I really don't believe that CBM was simply luring in investors with promises of golf course real estate if he never intended it in the first place. No, instead it's quite clear that the original golf course/real estate plan was still in place when the land was originally secured in late 1906 and only changed subsequently, and thankfully.
As for the rest about prior articles about CBM considering alternative sites as reported in earlier news articles in places like Good Ground and Montauk, I guess speculation about where they might have been is a sign of delusional thinking on this sometimes highly critical discussion board. ::)
Even though Macdonald himself wrote that prior to securing the land on Sebonac Neck:
"I offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 an acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it."
As far as Patrick's use of the "M" word, yes, I do agree that HJ Whigham, while profusely eulogizing his father-in-law with hyperbolic language (basically crediting his father-in-law for inspiring every good golf course in the United States built to that point) some 30 years after "M" was designed listed it with others as a "Macdonald Raynor course". In fairness, I think his point was that "M" was built with the CBM ideal of using concepts and holes from abroad, which is the method that CBM originated and championed and a course on which CBM advised on. So yes, I believe that although it wasn't a news article, it was a written eulogy from Whigham himself.
Have a nice weekend.
-
Mike you've repeatedly claimed that in December 1906, CBM was "quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired."
Can you produce any of these quotations?
-
David,
I mean, we basically agree with your sentiment in an early post that it was a hypothetical that never (obviously) came to fruition. And that CBM notes in 1912 that there was surplus for the Founders to use as they wish. So, what do you think they were going to build? A bowling alley?
So, yes. Perhaps we are making assumptions that it was still available for member built houses, if that is what the Founders chose to do with it. I agree NGLA was not going to build any Butler Cabins, based on CBM's writings.
Would the lawyer in you guess that the promise of 1.5AC per member was part of the original solicitation letter has some weight, to the degree that a Founder (is he so chose) could sue for his chunk of land he was promised for his $1000 check?
It just seemed to me that CBM felt obligated to still mention it in 1912, and barring any document showing the offer was rescinded, that it was technically part of the deal, of course, with the discretion to change it among friends, which they did.
So we may be arguing the semantics of never vs. "very soon discarded idea" to have lots available for members. It was in the original 1904 letter, but it is not hard to imagine the Real Estate company seeing that letter and calling CBM immediately to tell him that they were selling him land for golf to help themselves, and not for CBM to compete against them. It may have been an ill advised notion by CBM to get in members.
-
Jeff, I am glad you agree that the part about 90 acres of lots in the 1904 agreement was a hypothetical which "never (obviously) came to fruition." But I am afraid that (according to his post immediately above) Mike still believes that in late 1906 CBM locked himself into a 205 acre parcel stretched out over 2 miles with every intention of providing each of the 60 founders with a 1.5 acre lot.
You are an architect. Given that CBM already had a rough routing in mind (including the general shape of 2 miles long by '4 acres,' the starting and ending points, the use of a quarter of a mile of Peconic frontage for golf, the location of the Alps Hole, the Redan, the Eden, and the Cape, etc.) is it reasonable to believe that CBM was planning to provide sixty 1.5 acre lots on that same property, along with the golf course he had already begun to describe? When you look at the early stick routing and early course map, do you see room for sixty 1.5 acre lots? Do you see an extra 85 acres anywhere?
Turning to your questions. . .
You ask about the surplus land. As CBM said, resolution of "the surplus land" was at the discretion of the Founders, and they hadn't decided what to do with it. There was no mention in the 1912 statement of using it for housing, and obviously there was no in-place plan to distribute the land among the founders in fee simple plots else it would have happened! If they wanted to build a bowling alley I suppose they could have, but I imagine they decided to use it for things like open space, a new entry road, and/or perhaps a small practice range (I can't remember offhand whether or not the practice area was yet built.)
But as we already covered, we aren't really talking about much surplus land at all, and the little land that was there may not have even been appropriate for housing. And according to CBM, NGLA was not in "the bed business." I guess it is possible that, if they had so decided sometime after Jan. 1912, they could changed their minds about "the bed business" and they could have built some cabins or something if they could have found a place to jam them in. But this would have been going against what CBM expressed in 1906. And obviously they never did use whatever extra land was there for any sort of housing.
You ask what weight should be given to the mention of the sixty 1.5 acre residential plots in the 1904 solicitation letter. I suppose it is possible that some of the founders were hoping to get some land out of the deal before December of 1906, but the 1904 letter makes it clear that the scheme was "simply a suggestion" and that the details would be worked out later. "Later," in December 1906, CBM told them that NGLA wasn't going into the beds business, and the subscribers sent their checks in anyway. If some were still mad, then cooler heads apparently prevailed.
And yes, in 1912 CBM mentioned that the founders controlled the surplus land. That part wasn't "simply a suggestion" but what to do with the land was a suggestion.
It was in the original 1904 letter, but it is not hard to imagine the Real Estate company seeing that letter and calling CBM immediately to tell him that they were selling him land for golf to help themselves, and not for CBM to compete against them. It may have been an ill advised notion by CBM to get in members.
This is a good point. It looks like CBM got a pretty good deal on the property presumably because having NGLA as a neighbor would benefit the development. It would have made little sense for the developer to sell CBM land for residential housing on the cheap if CBM was going to flip lots in competition with the developers.
Also, the founders and associate members were a key customer base for the development, which heavily marketed its proximity to the course even before the course was built. CBM himself bought a land within the development, as did many other members, and even the Inn was owned by the development.
-
Mike Cirba,
Not sure why you are trying to digress into all these old issues. I ignored Patrick's comments about Whigham and Merion. Surely you can too. Let's try to stick to the immediate issues.
1. Again Mike, you've repeatedly claimed that in December 1906, CBM was "quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired." Can you produce any of these quotations?
2. You wondered why I produced a syndicated article instead of one of the NY articles. I was hoping to impress upon you and others that just because multiple newspapers produce the same information from the same source, it doesn't mean it is necessarily accurate. Here we have situation where articles across the country contain erroneous information because the NY papers mistakenly thought that the "suggestion" in the 1904 Agreement bound CBM at NGLA. By the way, the Witchita article is a republication of one of the NY articles, albeit shortened. About 1/2 of the NY article is just as obviously based on the 1904 agreement.
3. You have now returned full circle to your position that in December 1906 CBM was planning to jam his golf course into 110 acres, and use the rest for residential lots. Given how CBM describes the land and his proposed golf course at this point, this isn't even worth addressing.
-
Bryan,
How much of the shoreline of Peconic Bay could CBM have realistically used once he determined that he needed to use the Shinnecock Inn, about 1.4 miles away, as his clubhouse due to financial considerations?
Mike,
That's a false and flawed conclusion on your part.
You would have us believe that the Shinnecock Inn influenced the routing when it probably had nothing to do with the routing.
The Shinnecock Inn may have just been the inadvertant beneficiary of CBM's routing, based on the discovery and location of his desired holes.
Not to take anything away from his use of internal landforms which is superb but I don't think he had much choice to use more of that bluff and still get home in 18 holes.
I think the discovery of the Alps, Bottle, Redan and Eden hole may determined the routing.
On the other hand, the land to the west/Southwest of the clubhouse would have certainly produced exceptional holes
-
The following map shows the boundaries of the 205 acres of the property as well as the land used for golf.
While hardly ideal from a golf standpoint, I'm thinking a modern architect could locate cabins, homesites, etc. on multiple places across the property if that's what was desired.
Mike, could you identify those locations ?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
-
Patrick seems intent in holding onto his belief (aka idealistic fantasy ;)) that CBM and Whigham routed NGLA in 2 days on horseback (because the ground was so overgrown as to be impenetrable on foot) and snap, bam, boom, 205 acres were purchased and a classic was born! :)
Mike,
I don't know why you're so surprised, why you're in such disbelief.
Donald Ross routed hundreds of courses and designed the individual holes for those courses with just a one day visit.
-
Pat,
Ross's routing of courses was not based on riding overgrown, un-walkable property that had never been surveyed via horseback.
Why do you think CBM was so insistent on developing scale models of the property to guide the subsequent work of laying out and constructing the golf holes?
-
Pat,
Ross's routing of courses was not based on riding overgrown, un-walkable property that had never been surveyed via horseback.
How do you know what the conditions were on those sites ?
You tend to jump to conclusions, absent the facts, to justify your position ;D
Why do you think CBM was so insistent on developing scale models of the property to guide the subsequent work of laying out and constructing the golf holes?
Because he was a detail guy, or had you forgotten about the myriad of drawings of golf holes and features that he created and collected in his visits to the UK ?
If Ross could visit a site for a day, go home and subsequently send in the routing and hole designs, I think CBM and HJW could do the same give that they spent at least twice the time on site that Ross did.
These were talented men with vision.
-
One thing I find interesting on the scorecard map is the 12th tee is to the left of the 11th green on there. That is a great angle for the shot. And it makes sense the you have the traps on the seventh fairway as a way of trying to limit players from running it up that way.
-
Pat,
My understanding is that Ross would do his designs on Topographical maps.
CBM tells us that at the time he rode the property with Whigham the Sebonac site had never been surveyed and was so overgrown with brambles and bushes and swampland as to un-navigable, except on horseback.
We did later learn here that CBM was incorrect in his understanding that the land had never been surveyed prior; someone (Bryan Izatt, perhaps?) produced a topo map of the area from earlier, but if memory serves they were 10 foot increments, which probably wasn't sufficient for the type of detail CBM needed for golf construction.
-
These threads are like the movie Groundhog Day. We go over the same ridiculous theories over and over and over again. The difference is that, in Groundhog Day, the Bill Murray character actually learns something from the experience, whereas our Mike Cirba character never seems to learn a damn thing. He parades out the same theories again and agan, they are shot down by facts, he goes away for a while but comes out again and parades out the same exact theories, they are shot down by facts, he goes away for a while but comes out again . . . you get the picture.
Mike's "2 days on horseback" theory. Mike wants to argue that CBM and Whigham had little idea where they were going to put the course in December of 1906, and that they were planning on 90 acres of residential lots, so he pretends that up to that point, CBM had only seen the property for two days on horseback. This is ludicrous. By mid-December 1906, CBM and HJW had been focusing on this property for months, and not only had they been over the property repeatedly and studied the property earnestly, but Travis and others had already been over the property as well, and many of the features had already been described and hole locations discussed.
Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened. Here again is what happened, according to CBM:
1. There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3. The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4. CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5. After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later.
6. At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7. At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.
I am not making this stuff up. It is directly out of Scotland's Gift (p. 187) and confirmed in various articles from late 1906 and 1907.
Here is what Max Behr said about the creation NGLA:
The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
First they found the course, then they tailored the purchase around the course they had found. (And they left no room for 90 acres of lots!)
_____________________________________________________________
Mike, Before we cycle back to your next unsupportable theory about NGLA, we have some unfinished business regarding last week's unsupportable conjecture:
1. You've repeatedly claimed that in December 1906, CBM was "quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired." Can you produce any of these quotations?
2. You claim that as of December 1906, CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential lots on the NGLA property described in the articles. How were these 90 acres of lots going to fit on this property with the golf course, given the aspects of the golf course that CBM had already described?
-
Pat,
My understanding is that Ross would do his designs on Topographical maps.
Mike,
Is it your position that Donald Ross never routed a golf course based upon an onsite visit ?
Previously, you told us that the raw sites that he visited were benign in nature.
CBM tells us that at the time he rode the property with Whigham the Sebonac site had never been surveyed and was so overgrown with brambles and bushes and swampland as to un-navigable, except on horseback.
We did later learn here that CBM was incorrect in his understanding that the land had never been surveyed prior; someone (Bryan Izatt, perhaps?) produced a topo map of the area from earlier, but if memory serves they were 10 foot increments, which probably wasn't sufficient for the type of detail CBM needed for golf construction.
-
Of course not, Patrick, but neither does a man route an Ideal golf course that is his life's ambition and culmination of years of planning and research in 2 days on horseback without benefit of all the tools, human and otherwise, that would eventually be at his disposal.
-
Mike, As you ought to know by now, it wasn't two days. Why do you keep saying that it was?
Are you going to answer my questions?
-
David,
Yes, I will by tomorrow, but I would ask that you frame them perhaps more politely next time.
I would prefer to take some time to craft my answers in a way that hopefully outlines our respective differences and interpretations of events in a more concise, clearer way than time permitted today. Thanks.
As far as days on horseback, I only am responding to Patrick's contention that they were able to accomplish that Herculean feat in that meager time frame. I agree with you that by December 1906 when they secured 200 acres that they had already been out there several more times and brought friends. In fact, CBM tells us that in the December article.
-
Of course not, Patrick, but neither does a man route an Ideal golf course that is his life's ambition and culmination of years of planning and research in 2 days on horseback without benefit of all the tools, human and otherwise, that would eventually be at his disposal.
Mike,
I think that CBM indicated that it was two or THREE days.
Given that the entire property under consideration was limited to 405 acres and that template holes such as the Eden, Cape, Redan and Alps revealed themselves so readily, with the other holes becoming apparent soon after, I don't doubt that CBM and HJW could have routed the course in short order.
But, I think David and I understand your penchant to deny that CBM and HJW routed NGLA in short order.
For if they did, it undermines your claim that they couldn't have routed Merion in short order.
You've fought that premise for years, hence you have to deny CBM's and HJW's ability to see land and route a course in short order.
Never mind that Donald Ross did so frequently, your entire argument regarding CBM and HJW at NGLA is just a smoke screen to deflect your real fear that CBM routed and designed Merion.
I feel your pain
Now if I could just locate those phone records. ;D ::) ::)
-
Patrick
No need to be antagonistic.
In theory, CBM and Whigham could have done some type of routing in Ardmore in a single day visit in June 1910 but they tended to have more respect for the game and their friends than that. That's not how they operated and it's certainly not how they routed NGLA either. In fact, we know exactly what they did that day in Ardmore because we have the letter CBM wrote to the club subsequent to his visit and I trust we don't need to re-publish that one here for the zillionth time.
However, the property in Ardmore, being mostly former farmland and pastureland would have been far easier and far more navigable than what they encountered in Sebonac Neck. There the land had never been cleared, was covered in brambles, swamp, and overgrowth, and could only be navigated on horseback. Your reading of CBM's summary in "Scotland's Gift" is flawed and you seem unable and unwilling to digest the additional contemporaneous information reported at the time in news articles. That's ok, I understand and at one time I also believed in Santa Claus despite all evidence to the contrary. ;)
So yes, they could have routed a course in Ardmore in a single day. So could you or I. But why would we? Why would they?
Instead, the historical record and that club's archives, contemporaneous news articles, and remembrances of those who were there like Hugh and Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, and Richard Francis tell the whole story about the creation of that course over most of the next year of planning and routing and then construction.
No need to rebut because I think we've all exhausted that tired subject. Thanks.
-
I really wish the two of you would refrain from discussing Merion, especially if you are going to throw out nonsense about CBM and HJW having only been involved in the planning process for a day. You both know that's complete bullshit.
-
David,
I'm sitting here crafting a response to your questions and couldn't help but see your latest post. I really do wish you'd stop mis-staing my position and I'd ask you to point out where I wrote that CBM was only involved in the planning process for a single day?
In fact, as I re-read your personal attacks in the insulting post above from yesterday I question my own sanity in trying to dialogue with you David, because respectfully, you've been unnecessarily argumentative and pointlessly aggressive since my return. In fact, most folks whose opinions I respect tell me to just continue ignoring you and see your posts as ad hominen, as well as rephrasing inaccurately what I previously wrote to counter in a specious manner against straw men of your own creation.
That being said, I'm hopeful that such continued animosity is really not necessary here and if it continues, I'll just continue to ignore your posts.
I had wanted to write something a bit more expansive because truth be told, our respective positions on the creation of NGLA based on what you wrote yesterday are truthfully not too far apart, and honestly, we're much closer in agreement than either of us seem to be with Patrick's take on events. No matter. Instead, I'll just simply answer your questions and if we can have a civil discussion I'd appreciate that and if not, please don't ask me anything further expecting me to answer.
Here are your questions again;
1. You've repeatedly claimed that in December 1906, CBM was "quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired." Can you produce any of these quotations?
2. You claim that as of December 1906, CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential lots on the NGLA property described in the articles. How were these 90 acres of lots going to fit on this property with the golf course, given the aspects of the golf course that CBM had already described?
To answer #1, I'll refer again to the December 15, 1906 article segment I previously posted. Macdonald talks extensively about the attributes of the property selected and is quoted, "There are sites available for houses, and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay." For reference, I'll post it here again below.
In answer to #2, I didn't claim that CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential on the NGLA property by December of 1915. What I did say is that it seemed his plan to share that 200 acres in some combination of golf course and housing lots for the Founders still seemed alive at that point. I say that because I seriously doubt that multiple New York newspapers in separate stories would all somehow be in possession of the 1904 letter he sent to prospective Founders if it still wasn't part of the December 1906 press release. At that juncture Macdonald may have already been questioning exactly how much would be still available, or where it might be located, but he also made clear that laying out the course and staking out of the property would occur over the next several months so I assume there'd be time to figure that out.
Further, even your quote from Max Behr speaks to Macdonald's intent when he wrote, "Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes.
Finally, as I noted earlier, Macdonald again refers to the "Surplus Land" originally proposed for housing in 1904 again in his follow-up letter of 1912 to the membership stating that no determination had yet been made as to how to use the land.
Somewhere along the line his plans for housing on the property changed, but I don't believe it was by December of 1906. If you have additional contemporaneous materials indicating when that may have happened I'd be happy to change my view if proven incorrect. Thanks.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19061215CROP2_zpsc8nywxsz.jpg~original)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4100/5393591181_1ebcc650fa_z.jpg)
-
Mike,
1. You must realize that you've taken that quote out of context. CBM wasn't addressing housing options on his parcel, he was addressing housing options adjacent to NGLA As you well know, CBM bought the land from a developer and that developer was in the process of launching a huge development adjacent to NGLA! Here is the quote again, in context: "We are not going into the hash and bed business. A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of the first tee by outside interests. There are sites available for houses and Yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay."
2. In fact you did claim that CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential on the NGLA property. I provided you an article which directly lifted the "suggestion" from the 1904 Agreement about giving each founder a 1.5AC lot, and your response was, "All this really tells us is that nothing at all had changed from CBM's original plan to purchase 200 or so acres of which he estimated needing about 110 acres for golf and the rest for housing lots available to the Founders." So, you claimed that as of December 15, 1906, CBM was planning on splitting approximately 90-95 acres between the 60 founders. (This is the kind of disingenuous use of the source material that makes these conversations frustrating. You just said this a few posts ago because it suited your purposes then, but you deny it now because you've apparently realized the absurdity of your position.)
3. You seriously doubt that these newspapers had the 1904 agreement? Look at the articles! Look at the Sun article, directly above, which tracks the 1904 agreement from "The sixty founders . . . " all the way through the end of the article! Or better yet, look at the NY Tribune article of the same day. It even more obviously tracks the 1904 Agreement, and was the basis of the Wichita article. (It also goes on to paraphrase CBM's Outing Magazine article.) CBM sent out a copy of the 1904 Agreement with the "notice" that the funds were now due. There is no justification to "seriously doubt" this.
4. Your argument regarding the mentions of surplus land seems backward to me. Both the 1912 letter and Behr mention that there was surplus land which we know was not used for housing. From this you conclude that this surplus land must have been for housing. This make no sense. If the surplus land was for housing, then where is the housing?
5. You ask for evidence that CBM had dropped the notion of including a housing component before 1912. Okay.
- At some time prior to securing the NGLA property, CBM had offered the same land company $200/AC for approximately 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal. Unless you think he was going to build a 30AC golf course, he had already dropped the housing component from his plans.
- The other proof is that there is obviously no place for the type of housing project described in the 1904 Agreement on the property at NGLA.
6. Above you offered to post the other 1906 articles where CBM supposedly is quoted as saying there was a housing project on this land. I don't think any such articles exist, but would love to see them if they do. In particular, why don't you post the Dec. 15, 1906 NY Tribune article. It is quite obvious that the source is the 1904 Agreement.
Bottom line is that the 1906 articles confused the "suggestion" in the 1904 Agreement with CBM's immediate plans for NGLA. Same as you. Isn't it about time you accepted this and moved on?
-
I believe the following is the December 15, 1906 NY Tribune posted (but not cited) by Mike in one of the previous iterations of this thread.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5425252080_16045b9758_o.jpg)
Note that, starting with the phrase "Golfer conversant with . . . " and continuing for three paragraphs, the article is directly relying on the 1904 Agreement. The Tribune article is a longer and more detailed version than the Wichita article which even Mike admitted seems to have been "taken directly from the wording of CBM's solicitation letter to the Founders that he originally distributed in 1904."
Or look at the Sun article, posted by Mike above. The last three paragraphs are not part of the extended quote, but are rather a direct paraphrase of the same 1904 Agreement.
These two papers published the same basic information from the 1904 agreement on the same day, yet Mike has "serious doubts" that the information came from the same source? His position is unreasonable, to put it kindly.
-
I really wish the two of you would refrain from discussing Merion, especially if you are going to throw out nonsense about CBM and HJW having only been involved in the planning process for a day. You both know that's complete bullshit.
David,
For a smart guy you're sure missing Mike's motivation for promoting his revisionist history.
It's a defensive ploy meant to dispel, denigrate and dismiss CBM's and HJW's involvement with the design of Merion.
Mike knows that the myriad of early newspaper articles he produces were often the repetition of a single, earlier article.
His "mimeograph" technique should be obvious to all, especially since he's used this ploy on numerous occasions.
Yet, Mike uses the "number" of articles as proof positive to those unaware of journalism at the turn of the century.
Mike thinks that repeating incorrect information will somehow cleanse the erroneous information and have it accepted as the Gospel.
Your process of exposing every erroneous article he presents, as flawed, doesn't stop him from just citing an additional article based on the same erroneous information.
Please tell us that you recognize his long standing pattern of disseminating erroneous information in order to further his agenda.
Your citation of facts that are contrary to Mike's position hasn't deterred him yet, so do you really think he's going to abandon his true objective ?
-
Patrick, I'm not posting to convince Mike, I am posting to keep the record straight, and so that others have a better understanding of what actually happened.
-
Patrick,
You're sounding rather desperate and lacking any factual information other than what CBM wrote in summary 20 years after the fact. Bluff and bluster and trying to impugn my motivation in exploring the creation of NGLA doesn't convince anyone. Try doing some actual research my friend and you may be surprised at what you learn.
David,
Busy day here today but I'll try to address some of your points later, thanks.
-
Mike,
While I agree that it is best not to dwell on motivations, I do sympathize with Patrick here. We've discussed these same issues at least a half-dozen times over the years, and each time you come back to them it is starting anew. You rely on language in the 1906 articles which clearly came from the 1904 Agreement, and you apply it to NGLA. You claim that CBM was quoted as saying things in 1906 and 1912 that he wasn't quoted as saying. You hang on to and recycle pet theories that have long been refuted. To put it mildly, it is a frustrating process.
If you don't believe we are recycling, go back and look at the old threads. While trying to find a copy of an old article yesterday I came across these from 6 years ago:
. . .
What I am contending, however, is that the record shows that Macdonald purchased 205 acres BEFORE routing the golf course.
He/They also anticpated only needing about 110 acres for the golf course and planned to use the rest to sell lots to members/investors.
. . .
And from the same post on the same real estate scheme . . .
For instance, we now know that when Macdonald "optioned" the 200 acres he did so with the idea that some large portion of it would be used for subscriber real estate lots.
In other words, in December 1906 he committed to buy considerably more land than he thought he needed for the golf course, which at first he figured would be about 110 acres, leaving another 100 for real estate.
I also understand why Patrick links this to Merion, as your exploration about NGLA has generally been about trying to make some obscure point about Merion. In fact, the same thread I quoted from above contains a number of your digressions about Merion, including this gem about H.J. Whigham:
David,
Was that Hyperbolic HJ Whigham who also stated that he and Macdonald found everything they needed in terms of holes at NGLA during a single horseback ride when the documented contenporaneous evidence is wildly different, who told us that Merion was a MacRaynor course in 1938 after everyone was dead and buried when the contemporaneous documented evidence wildly differs?
. . .
Talk about "hyperbolic!" And these are pretty mild examples by your standards. Remember how you used it argue that in 1910 CBM was relatively unknown as golf course architect and was only known for his golfing prowess? . . .
[I had a long list of examples here, but decided to strike them. I don't want to give you any ideas as to what to recycle next.]
You've been doing this for years. How could we not be frustrated?
As to whether you address my points, I don't care if you do or you don't. But if you do, I would hope that you can at least acknowledge that the language about the acreage for housing in the Sun article and the Tribune comes directly from the 1904 Agreement. Once you acknowledge that to yourself, everything else ought to fall into place.
-
Of all of the New York daily newspapers, those who do this type of historic research would likely agree that the Brooklyn Daily Eagle provided the most extensive, knowledgeable, and well-connected golf coverage of any of them.
In that regard, the following Eagle article from December 16, 1906 announcing the plans for NGLA discusses both the issues of clubhouse as well as sites for cabins for the founding members along the perimeters which was termed at that juncture, "likely".
I very much doubt that this was someone at the Eagle just mistakenly referring back to the original 1904 letter to prospective Founding members. I trust those with open minds will interpret events correctly.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19061216_zpsyjw9vagz.jpg~original)
-
Mike,
First, the article says nothing about "cabins." Just like the other articles, and JUST LIKE THE "SUGGESTION" 1904 AGREEMENT, it contemplates divvying up the excess land between the founders, but notes (AS DID THE 1904 AGREEMENT) that this was not yet settled. This article provides essentially the same information as the Sun and the Tribune had provided the day before.
Second, I would NOT agree in this instance that the Brooklyn Daily Eagle had the best information. The Tribune and Sun articles were from THE DAY BEFORE, and the material about the purchase in this article could have been derived directly from those articles. Further, the Sun article had quotes from CBM directly (from his "Notice" to the subscribers) and the Tribune article had quotes directly from HJ Whigham. While the BDE is trying to safe face by claiming they knew about it all along, it is obvious the other two papers had the jump on the Eagle in this story, and that the Eagle was playing catch-up with the same exact information.
It is like a big game of telephone.
1) CBM sends out a Notice and includes the 1904 Agreement
2) On December 15 The Sun and Tribune both repeat information from the 1904 Agreement, and erroneously assume that the "suggestion" in the 1904 Agreement described what CBM was going to do at NGLA.
3) The next day the Eagle plays catch up, and repackages and repeats the same information reported the day before by the Sun and the Tribune (either from the info CBM provided the subscribers, or by cribbing the other articles.)
4) Ninety years later you repeat their error.
-
The day prior, December 15th 1906, the New York Sun reported the long quotation by Macdonald talking about the land he had secured and his plans as they stood at that juncture that I posted previously.
For completeness, here's the entire article.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
-
The last two paragraphs of the Sun article (everything after the long CBM quote) are directly paraphrasing the 1904 Agreement. In fact all three articles are directly paraphrasing the 1904 Agreement. The Tribune article is most detailed, the Eagle the least, but they all track the 1904 Agreement, even in the order they cover the issues from that Agreement.
Mike,
You've admitted that the language in the Tribune article (which is the same as the Wichita article) came directly from the 1904 Agreement.
Are you really contending that the same information in the other two articles must have necessarily come from somewhere else?
Because that would be silly.
-
Patrick,
You're sounding rather desperate and lacking any factual information other than what CBM wrote in summary 20 years after the fact.
Bluff and bluster and trying to impugn my motivation in exploring the creation of NGLA doesn't convince anyone. Try doing some actual research my friend and you may be surprised at what you learn.
Mike,
Was the above paragraph "ghost written" for you, because it has a familiar refrain.😜
To the contrary, those who closely followed your repeated attempts to rewrite how NGLA was created are well aware of your motivation.
No secret there.
David,
Busy day here today but I'll try to address some of your points later, thanks.
-
Patrick's premise:
The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.
CBM says in Scotland's Gift that "We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once,"
He goes on to say "our intention was to have our first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn"
In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned. Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site? Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning. When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay. He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.
-
Bryan,
While we're at it, let me "ghost write" what was reported at the time of the fire by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on April 13, 1908. I think it provides some good information consistent with what CBM later wrote, and it also discusses the state of the road system and other related considerations.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19080413BDE_zpsnagahliu.jpg~original)
-
Not sure why David keeps attributing the two day theory to Mike, and then flogging him, when it is Patrick’s argument? Mike is arguing it took longer to route NGLA, and there are many snippets that support that, including David’s timeline in reply 80. It sure reads like the routing took more than three days to finalize:
Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened. Here again is what happened, according to CBM:
1. There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3. The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4. CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5. After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later.
6. At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7. At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.
Second, you will note that the actual purchase agreement allows 3 months to complete the routing after option, and I see no reason why they wouldn’t have used it all, if needed.
Third, you will note that the accounts of that horseback ride repeatedly mention only 4-5 holes – the Alps, water, Eden, etc. So they found some holes on the first rides – they are still short of 18 in that romanticized account! Finding some general locations for a few holes is not a final routing.
On a separate topic, in re-reading the original solicitation letter by CBM, I believe David has misinterpreted the “hypothetical.” It says specifically that “we would give each subscriber an acre and a half in fee simple.” The phrase “This is simply a suggestion” really applies to the bond scheme proposed in the next paragraphs.
Lastly, when David says the real estate lots were always part of an adjacent development, I don’t see how he can read it that way, when CBM says “Assuming WE buy 200 acres, and need 110 to build the golf course, We would give each subscriber 1.5 AC….etc.” How could he GIVE the developers lots away if he didn’t own the ground? (However, I have agreed that the developers had to be nonplussed about CBM's initial idea of his own lots, and may have been the ones who squashed the idea soon after the subscription letter went out)
And again, CBM felt need to mention it in his 1912 missive, even though the basic parameters had changed at some point, probably fairly early as they routed the course and felt they needed more than 110 acres, but we can’t tell.
Note, I am just using the official subscriber letter from CBM and the 1912 update from CBM, not secondary source newspaper articles, and
BTW, I am not sure why DM is flogging Mike on those, because he isn’t really using them either.
And again, my only argument with David may be semantics – I believe it was originally part of the plan, and his use of “never” is wrong, given the offer of 1.5 Acre was in the letter founders signed when they sent the check in, it is a legally binding agreement. I feel it sort of just didn’t work out as they took their time refining the routing, etc.. If he wants to argue that it was out of play by the time of the purchase agreement and that constitutes practically never, okay, I understand.
It is obvious, that those who did sign it were amenable to not having land later, and that the golf course was enough for their money. Not sure whatever happened to the bonds, as I see no mention of that. That would probably be common in these kind of ventures, but no one has shown any documentation in between, so I presume some founders thought they were getting some lots, hence CBM's casual mention of leftover land in 1912. Maybe there is some, and it hasn't been shown.
In the end, I don't see the main participants being all that different in their understanding of how things happened, but they seem desperate to make sure the world sees it in words they would choose to use, not the others. It really isn't worth the word parsing to see who is more right.....
Is there any doubt that this entire thread (and topic repeatedly brought up by Pat, not Mike, but which seems disproven with some of the new articles posted) is really just an excuse to draw Mike into his own public flogging (again)? And perhaps, vice versa?
-
Jeff,
I agree with your last post except I'm not trying to flog anyone, not even Patrick, even if most would likely agree he's richly deserving. ;) ;D
Seriously, it's a topic that I think is fascinating and goes a long way to show how what a few did back in the early days through intensive planning and careful execution created masterpieces that we still marvel at today. I think the details are important.
-
Not sure why David keeps attributing the two day theory to Mike, and then flogging him, when it is Patrick’s argument?
It's NOT my argument, it's a direct quote from Charles Blair Macdonald in "Scotland's Gift".
I'm surprised that you didn't know that
Mike is arguing it took longer to route NGLA, and there are many snippets that support that, including David’s timeline in reply 80. It sure reads like the routing took more than three days to finalize:
Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened. Here again is what happened, according to CBM:
1. There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3. The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4. CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5. After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later.
6. At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7. At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.
Second, you will note that the actual purchase agreement allows 3 months to complete the routing after option, and I see no reason why they wouldn’t have used it all, if needed.
Third, you will note that the accounts of that horseback ride repeatedly mention only 4-5 holes – the Alps, water, Eden, etc. So they found some holes on the first rides – they are still short of 18 in that romanticized account! Finding some general locations for a few holes is not a final routing.
On a separate topic, in re-reading the original solicitation letter by CBM, I believe David has misinterpreted the “hypothetical.” It says specifically that “we would give each subscriber an acre and a half in fee simple.” The phrase “This is simply a suggestion” really applies to the bond scheme proposed in the next paragraphs.
Lastly, when David says the real estate lots were always part of an adjacent development, I don’t see how he can read it that way, when CBM says “Assuming WE buy 200 acres, and need 110 to build the golf course, We would give each subscriber 1.5 AC….etc.” How could he GIVE the developers lots away if he didn’t own the ground? (However, I have agreed that the developers had to be nonplussed about CBM's initial idea of his own lots, and may have been the ones who squashed the idea soon after the subscription letter went out)
And again, CBM felt need to mention it in his 1912 missive, even though the basic parameters had changed at some point, probably fairly early as they routed the course and felt they needed more than 110 acres, but we can’t tell.
Note, I am just using the official subscriber letter from CBM and the 1912 update from CBM, not secondary source newspaper articles, and
BTW, I am not sure why DM is flogging Mike on those, because he isn’t really using them either.
And again, my only argument with David may be semantics – I believe it was originally part of the plan, and his use of “never” is wrong, given the offer of 1.5 Acre was in the letter founders signed when they sent the check in, it is a legally binding agreement. I feel it sort of just didn’t work out as they took their time refining the routing, etc.. If he wants to argue that it was out of play by the time of the purchase agreement and that constitutes practically never, okay, I understand.
It is obvious, that those who did sign it were amenable to not having land later, and that the golf course was enough for their money. Not sure whatever happened to the bonds, as I see no mention of that. That would probably be common in these kind of ventures, but no one has shown any documentation in between, so I presume some founders thought they were getting some lots, hence CBM's casual mention of leftover land in 1912. Maybe there is some, and it hasn't been shown.
In the end, I don't see the main participants being all that different in their understanding of how things happened, but they seem desperate to make sure the world sees it in words they would choose to use, not the others. It really isn't worth the word parsing to see who is more right.....
Is there any doubt that this entire thread (and topic repeatedly brought up by Pat, not Mike, but which seems disproven with some of the new articles posted) is really just an excuse to draw Mike into his own public flogging (again)? And perhaps, vice versa?
-
Mike,
I would love to know any detail I can on some of these. I am not sure this or many of our other threads really uncover those, but rather, debate the meaning of various conflicting accounts. Hopefully, sometimes some understanding may come out of it.
Pat,
Just read the post, rather than throwing out any missiles, as you usually do. According to David, the 2-3 day horseback ride was to determine if they even wanted the land, and they went back out later to re-study it. That is more than 2-3 days by reading Scotland's Gift. And, they had 3 months to work in, they probably asked for that for a reason. Quite simply, you are doing what you accuse Mike of - throwing poop against the wall to support your 2-3 day theory so you can bash Mike on Merion some more. Pretty clever to turn it around so the casual reader won't notice. But we are smarter than that on gca.com!
-
David,
Why would CBM send out a press release in December of 1906 and the purposefully include his 1904 Agreement sent to prospective Founding Members if that plan had already significantly changed? (1904 Agreement reproduced below for reference)
Instead, I would propose this chain of events is supported by the facts we know;
1904 – Macdonald sends out an Agreement to Founding Members where he proposes to “buy 200 or more acres of ground on Long Island”, of which he estimates needing 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for a clubhouse and proposes that 1.5 acre lots can be provided to each of the 60 Founders.
March 24, 1906 – The plan to buy enough land so that the original subscribers could build on the property if they desired was once again published in the New York press. (Reproduced below for reference)
December 1906 – It is reported that Macdonald secured 200 acres of ground on Long Island”. Included with the press release is the Agreement (verbatim in some cases as you pointed out) that talks about how the land will be utilized and now Macdonald, in describing the land he has secured is quoted as saying “There are sites available for houses and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay.”
The articles go on to state that the next several months a committee of Macdonald, Travis, Emmet, and Whigham will dedicate time to “lay out the course” and “plan(ning) the holes in detail”. It is also reported that a plaster of paris model will then be created subsequent to that effort or “after the course is staked out”.
April 1907 – This ongoing work of deciding which holes to reproduce on the available land is reported on by Walter Travis. (Reproduced below for reference)
August 1907 – An article for the first time showing the routing of the National Golf Links appears in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. If there is interest I can reproduce it again here.
August 1908 – An article describing construction of the National surprisingly shows that Walter Travis is still part of the effort at this point. If there is interest I can reproduce it again here.
January 1912 - Macdonald in a letter to the Founders again refers to the “Surplus Land” he mentioned in the original Agreement indicating that no determination has been made as of that time regarding its usage.
I also find it related and relevant to include the rest of what Max Behr wrote in 1915 about the routing of the National Golf Links and best practices in general, a portion of which you posted yesterday. I’ve bolded portions for emphasis;
Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course
and is available for other purposes. And there you have the
solution of the whole business. A golf links takes as a minimum
from a hundred to a hundred and ten acres and ten more is needed
for club-house, garage and roads. You may be fortunate enough
to find a property of a hundred and ten acres which would fill
all requirements. But it is far safer and probably cheaper to
buy a hundred and fifty or two hundred acres because what land
you do not need for golfing purposes can be sold for building sites
and cannot fail to fetch a far higher price than the original
cost. No golf links was ever made in this country without
enhancing the value of the surrounding property. And the
advantage of buying plenty of land is to allow the club to lay out
the best possible course without actually using more acres.
The acreage of the course itself will be about the same in any
case, from a hundred to a hundred and ten acres; but the value
of the course will depend a good deal on being able to get just the
acres you want with all the best features of the landscape;
and to get that it is often necessary to buy a good deal more
land than is actually needed for the course. Golf clubs are
beginning to realize the value which they give to land; and for
that reason it has become customary for years past for clubs to
buy their land outright. It is now being realized that if a club
buys double the amount of land actually needed for the course
it will eventually be able to sell the extra acreage at such a price
that the links itself will be paid for out of the profit on the real
estate transaction. So that although it is possible to lay out a
course and build a house on a hundred and ten acres, we would
advise the purchase in every case of at least a hundred and fifty
acres; and from a financial point of view it can hardly ever be
wrong to purchase anything up to two hundred acres.
Of course, we know that lots were never sold to Founders at NGLA but to say this was never the plan for the land CBM eventually purchased seems to lack a factual foundation. If you have information contemporaneous or otherwise that shows that Macdonald changed his mind regarding his Agreement prior to December 1906 I’m certainly happy to adjust my understanding, thanks.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19060324_zps61kq6fjy.jpg~original)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLATravis190704_zpsx4hl6o5h.jpg~original)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA191201045_zpsk26nxjgx.jpg~original)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA191201046_zpsdrmjqjgm.jpg~original)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA191201047_zpsctvyrsaw.jpg~original)
-
Jeff,
1. I never said Mike actually believed the NGLA-Routed-in-Two-Days-on-Horseback theory. To the contrary, it is one of Mike's many red-herring arguments he has been offering it up for the past 6 years (at least) to impugn the credibility of various players and to muddy up the story of what happened in the early days at NGLA.
Here he is in 2009, trying to discredit HJ Whigham by falsely attributing the position to him:
Was that Hyperbolic HJ Whigham who also stated that he and Macdonald found everything they needed in terms of holes at NGLA during a single horseback ride when the documented contenporaneous evidence is wildly different, who told us that Merion was a MacRaynor course in 1938 after everyone was dead and buried when the contemporaneous documented evidence wildly differs?
. . .
Here he is in March 2011 trying to discredit CBM using the same tactic:
March 9, 2011,
Besides, your argument is with CBM, not me. HE is the one who wrote that he and Whigham decided to option the property based on the 2-3 day horseback ride.
And here is my dismissal of Mike's strategy from February. It explains my current frustration with Mike for injecting this into yet another discussion:
The bit about it all being done during the horseback rides is purely a red herring created by Mike Cirba himself. It is a joke. It has nothing to do with anything I have ever written. Mike just pretends it does because making up his own straw man is as close as he can come to scoring a point around here.
It was Mike (not Patrick) who injected in the red herring notion of a quick two day routing on horseback into this conversation. All Patrick had said was that they "required horseback riding to get around initially," which came right out of Scotland's gift. Mike couldn't resist trolling out the same old nonsense already well covered for years:
Patrick seems intent in holding onto his belief (aka idealistic fantasy ;)) that CBM and Whigham routed NGLA in 2 days on horseback (because the ground was so overgrown as to be impenetrable on foot) and snap, bam, boom, 205 acres were purchased and a classic was born!
Unfortunately Patrick took the bait, but that doesn't change the fact that Mike is trolling AGAIN with this red herring, even though everyone paying attention knows that CBM, HJW and others had spent a substantial amount of time going over the land before they secured it. (Even Patrick has said this over the years.)
2. The mid-December newspaper accounts only mention four holes by name (three that were recognizable and famous, and one that they felt would soon become recognizable and famous) but I don't think it makes sense to read this to mean that they had only found and considered these four holes by this point. In fact they also told us quite a lot more about the routing even at this early stage, including the starting and ending point, the shape and location of the course as a whole, and the use of the 1/4 mile of Peconic frontage. And earlier news reports indicate that they had been going over the land for some time, and had been corresponding about the course with advisors overseas. While nothing was finalized and the planning process was far from complete, they seem to have had some semblance of a rough routing in mind.
3. Your interpretation of the land hypothetical (starting, as hypotheticals often do, with "Assuming we . . . ") in the 1904 letter is interesting, but one with which I disagree. As I read it, and (more importantly) as they seem to have read it, the entire structure of the club dealings - the associate number and fees, the assumption about the surplus land, the bond scheme, was a "suggestion" with the "details to be worked out later." The point was this was all left up to the founders. This is confirmed by the 1912 letter which notes that the Founders were to decide what to do with the surplus land. Had it not been a suggestion, then they'd have been bound to divvy it up in fee simple.
4. You wrote, "When David says the real estate lots were always part of an adjacent development, I don’t see how he can read it that way . . .." Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am talking about the actual NGLA purchase, not the 1904 hypothetical. As you know, CBM bought the land from a developer who was in the process of building and hotel and developing the land adjacent to NGLA into real estate lots. CBM was referring to the development when he said there is an adjacent hotel and home lots available. You and I agree that the developer wouldn't have sold CBM land so CBM could take away the developers business.
5. You indicate that Mike is not using the secondary source newspaper articles. I think you are mistaken, as Mike's many references to these articles indicate.
6. I don't think our positions are that far apart either. If I said the scheme was "never part of the plan" I was referring specifically to the actual land purchase. What I mean is that when CBM secured this land, he was not planning on divvying up a huge chunk of the 205 acres to the founders for lots. He knew that the course itself would take up most the land, and explicitly stated that the land purchased would be tailored around the actual golf course, and he made no mention of a large real estate component. CBM left it to the founders to decide what to do with whatever would be left over after CBM got his course.
-
Mike, You ask, "Why would CBM send out a press release in December of 1906 and the purposefully include his 1904 Agreement sent to prospective Founding Members if that plan had already significantly changed?"
First, Mike, so we don't have to go over it again down the road, can you confirm that you now agree that these newspaper articles are relying on the language in the 1904 letter/agreement?
Second, it might help advance the conversation if you actually and carefully read the source material, including material you post. Rather than relying on "a press release," the Sun article explains where they got the information. It was from a Notice that payment was due sent by CBM to those who had agreed to found the club pursuant to the 1904 letter and whatever else CBM had sent them. Is it really a mystery to you why CBM would send 1904 letter to potential subscribers when asking them to send him the money for their subscriptions?
Third, the same general plan was in place. CBM would design and build the course and then the founders could do with whatever was left over as they determined. The "suggestion" assuming 200 acres and 110 acres for the course, was just that. The founders could work out the details later, depending on what, if anything was left over.
Fourth, you ask, "If you have information contemporaneous or otherwise that shows that Macdonald changed his mind regarding his Agreement prior to December 1906 I’m certainly happy to adjust my understanding, thanks." I just answered this a few posts above, Mike. But here it is again,
Evidence that CBM had "changed his mind regarding" the housing component includes the following:
1. CBM had already tried to purchase 120 acres of land near the Canal. Obviously there was no room for a housing component on this parcel.
2. CBM explained that the exact boundaries of his purchase would be determined by the needs of the golf course. There would be no need to tailor the exact lines to the course unless he was only buying land for the course.
3. Even by his description of his preliminary plans in December 1906, there was no room for 90 acres of housing.
Two questions:
1. We agree that by December 15, 2006 CBM and others had already been going over the land very carefully and that they already knew (at least) the beginning and end point, the length of the property, the use of the 1/4 mile on Peconic Bay, the mile of golf frontage on Bullshead Bay, the narrow width, the location of at least three famous and one soon to be famous holes, etc. It seems safe to assume they had some other ideas as well. You think that CBM meant for the 1904 example to apply to NGLA. If so, where exactly was CBM planning on putting the 90 acres of housing?
2. You've admitted that the language in the Tribune article came from the 1904 letter. Do you now agree that the information in the other papers most likely came from the same? If not, what is your reasoning?
-
David,
I think Mike has a fair point/question. If the solicitation had materially changed between 1904 and 1906, would we expect CBM to send out an updated version in the document you say is the primary source material?
You seem to presume it was just more convenient to send out the old, inaccurate one and that it just wasn't that important, but wondering if accuracy was important doesn't seem out of line to me.
Also, when did CBM make the offer on 120 parcel? Before the 1904 subscription letter or after? I simply don't remember......
-
Jeff,
First, the prospective founders had already signed that Letter/Agreement and pledged their $1000 in the space provided. That CBM would send a copy when asking them to make good on their pledge should be of no surprise to anyone. That is the way these things work.
Second, I don't think that in CBM's mind the agreement had been materially altered. He was going to find his golf course, buy the land, and when the golf course was done, the founders could do what they wanted with any surplus land.
Third, at this late juncture I don't think it reasonable to have expected that CBM would have torn up the original and started the process over with a new agreement clarifying that he wasn't following the hypothetical.
Fourth, we aren't privy to all the communications CBM had with the founders. It may be that he did clarify. In fact, as I read the quotes from his December 15, 1906 communication, he seemed quite clear that there wasn't going to be a housing component on the property. There was a hotel and housing available in the adjacent development.
As for the 120 acre parcel, I don't think we have an exact date, but CBM suggests it was right after the Brooklyn developer bought the property, which I believe was in 1905. ("The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate but was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land. I offered [the developer] $120 per acre for some 120 adcres near the canal . . ..")
-
David,
Thanks, it makes a bit more sense in that timeline, although you could argue that he offered on 120 acres in 1905, and 200 acres in 1906, suggesting he still had the idea in his mind, even as golf was first and foremost. Offering on 120 doesn't preclude the second offer for more land, it may just have been that is all he thought he could get in that area.
We are all still speculating a lot on the CBM mindset and other conditions. I think Mike, you, others would all love to see other documents before drawing firm conclusions about the details.
For instance, how many subscribers did he have when he sent the 1906 "make good" letter? Were there more frequent communications to existing subscribers? What did the incorporation papers say? Also interesting to note that the development around NGLA never really came to fruition, which goes to the point of "sometimes things just don't work out as you envision."
I will wait for any new information from the many intrepid researchers here and elsewhere, rather than continually debate the small differences and the completely unknowable.
-
Jeff,
Mike asked for information showing that CBM had changed his mind about the supposed real estate scheme prior to December 1906. At the very least the 120 acre offer accomplishes this. The 120 acre offer also demonstrates that CBM was not intent on buying extra acreage for real estate, and it shows that CBM did not think he was bound by the hypothetical in the 1904 Agreement.
I suppose one could argue that CBM was committed to the supposed real estate scheme in 1904, then in 1905 he was only focused on golf, then he changed his mind again in 1906, but given the constraints he had already identified on the NGLA land, and given what else he said about the project, and given he purchased the land from an active real estate development, it seems much more reasonable to think that, like with the 120 acre offer, he was still focused solely on golf.
You are an architect so you can consider the ramifications of trying to stretch a 110 acre golf course out over a two mile strip of land (which according to CBM was the length of the course end to end.) 110 acres stretched 2 miles leaves about 420 feet of width for an out and back course. With split fairways and centerline bunkers, some of the individual hole corridors at NGLA are almost that wide. Given the locations and holes he had already identified and other the holes he envisioned for his ideal course, it seems unreasonable to insist that he was planning on placing 90 acres of housing on that same land.
-
Patrick's premise:
The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.
CBM says in Scotland's Gift that "We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once,"
Bryan,
Note the words, "at once"
A shortage of funds precluded CBM from building a clubhouse, so he decided to use a convenient nearby Inn
He goes on to say "our intention was to have our first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn"
That's correct.
You wouldn't expect him to have golfers walk 500 yards or 1,700 yards to the first tee, would you
In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay
He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned.
They didn't own the land near the Shinnecock Inn.
But, if they did, why would they abandon a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn, just because the Shinnecock Inn burned down.
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have remained intact and available for construction.
But, CBM built his clubhouse where he always intended it to be.
In addition, even if NGLA owned the land behind the 9th green, CBM, with his ego, would never build a clubhouse in the shadow of the Shinnecock clubhouse, a club he was recently thrown out of
Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site?
Even If they owned the land, why not build the clubhouse there ?
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have had no impact on the land, and more importantly, they had a major highway leading up to their front door, so why abandon that theoretical site and build your clubhouse on the other side of the property unless you always intended to build your clubhouse on a site that evena ten year old could figure out as the best site for a clubhouse.
You'd have to be a moron to think that he'd build a clubhouse on land they didn't own, with the Shinnecock clubhouse and the Shinnecock members looking down on him/them
Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning. When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay.
Bryan, They didn't own the land
He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.
They abandoned the Shinnecock Inn site because that site was a default site, a site of convenience.
They didn't own the land near the 9th green.
But, they did own the land where the current clubhouse is located.
In addition, the routing of #'s 1 and 18 was deliberate in that perfect land for golf was abandoned in favor of creating a donut hole where the clubhouse was always intended to reside.
When's the last time you heard of someone constructing a building on land they didn't own ?,
-
.
Pat,
Just read the post, rather than throwing out any missiles, as you usually do.
I read it and corrected you.
It would seem that you take umbrage to being proven wrong, and when you're proven wrong you resort to claiming that I'm "throwing out missles"
What a pathetic response.
According to David, the 2-3 day horseback ride was to determine if they even wanted the land, and they went back out later to re-study it.
Oh, so now David, rather than CBM is your guiding source.
How convenient.
That is more than 2-3 days by reading Scotland's Gift. And, they had 3 months to work in, they probably asked for that for a reason. Quite simply, you are doing what you accuse Mike of - throwing poop against the wall to support your 2-3 day theory so you can bash Mike on Merion some more.
Once again you have your facts wrong, which isn't surprising.
Your memory is also failing.
It was Mike who made the claims that CBM couldn't have routed Merion in short order.
From the very beginning Mike, in concert with the Merionettes, tried to dispel the notion that CBM could route a course in short order.
And let's not forget that CBM had the more difficult task of not only routing a course, but routing it in such a way that it contained his ideal and/or template holes
Pretty clever to turn it around so the casual reader won't notice.
That's funny, I'm waving a red flag and sounding the alarm bells and you're claiming that I'm trying to make a point, unnoticed.
But we are smarter than that on gca.com!
I'm always suspect when someone tells me how smart they are
-
Mike Cirba,
I want to ask you a question and I want you to swear that you're telling the truth.
Are other individuals supplying you with information that you're posting ?
-
David,
Well, it is clear that he intended to leave a little extra land from his 1912 missive, even if it wasn't specifically for members lots (although I happen to think it probably was) CBM never hired Olmstead (the logical choice) for any sort of subdivision planning, so we are left to wonder if he never considered it, considered it secondary to be figured out later, or was just a little naďve when it came to planning the both together and messed it up. Probably a combo of 2 and 3, with 2 being prominent.
As to whether the 120 proves he was not interested in real estate, it does occur that a difference in the sites might have some bearing on it. I believe the 120 acres was smack dab in the middle of the proposed development of SH land company, whereas the final site was said to be a bit more remote, and probably wasn't in the developers immediate plan. In fact, there never was any real estate development right around NGLA, not to this day!
Of course, you could also argue that CBM dodged a bullet, not taking a smaller site in a real estate development in favor of a more secluded one, and perhaps saw the advantages at that time of being away in nature (some of his words from the documents) when playing golf. In short, he probably realized that an ideal golf course shouldn't be shoe horned in with housing. So, you may be right that any real housing went away at the very beginning of buying this site, although CBM did mention the surplus land in 1912, albeit, to be used as the Founders wished, and even the tone )this turned out to be true" does tell us he may have been skeptical or wary of his ability to pull that off while still building the ideal golf course.
Pat,
Again, you post a bunch of words, but really say nothing. I have been discussing facts we know and various interpretations here with David, and have been glad to ask questions, admit I don't know certain things etc. Look in the mirror as you describe yourself, not me.
I recommend you stop posting on your own thread, at least until you have something useful to say on the subject, rather than just trying to insult everyone else. Your fact free, untruth filled post is the worst kind of attack post, the kind that keeps good people off this site.
-
Patrick,
Usually when one is losing a debate the next step is to impugn the motivations or the personal knowledge of their opponent, suggesting by implication that they are somehow "cheating".
Everything I've posted here is from my own research which includes contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles unearthed primarily by Joe Bausch, CBM's book, a book by David Goddard called "Colonizing Southampton". I've tried to rely on facts and not conjecture and have preferred to let what was said, particularly by Macdonald himself as well as the timing of events over a number of years guide my research. Of course, everyone is free to interpret these facts and evidence as they wish. The best research builds on the shoulders of those who've come before, frankly.
I have also been part of a private email thread with about 15 addressees (some on GCA and some not) that was initiated by Tom Paul. Frankly, Tom is much more into the history of the people who made up that world than I am but he is not feeding me any information to post and others here on that email can weigh in to correct me if they think I'm simply being a mouthpiece for Tom or any others.
However, in an email discussing David's response to my post (and Jeff's) yesterday regarding the real estate component, something clicked for me last night that I'm not sure Tom or others understood when I responded which I'll be posting about today. Discussion is sometimes the mother of inspiration and frankly what David mentioned about CBM's initial offer to purchase 120 acres has me much more convinced than ever that I'm on the right track.
-
David,
Regarding CBM's intentions for providing a real estate component on the current site, why would he say in 1912 that there is extra land but the Founders haven't yet determined what to do with it? Why would he identify the Founders as the decision makers for that land if it wasn't to be their's specifically as opposed to the Board of Directors or the membership in total?
-
Jim,
Good point. It seems to prove the basic idea to leave extra land as a benefit to the original subscribers was still in place, which is what I have been saying all along. CBM obviously got carried away with the golf course reducing the other value given for those subscribers, but they sure got their golf money's worth!
David thinks there was no specific intention for founders lots (which wouldn't put NGLA into the bed and hash biz) but the original letters says it is to give them some value for their money. Obviously, using it for bowling alley, ice rink, etc. for members use wouldn't give them additional return like having a small chunk of real estate, so I do think lots was the original premise, and ongoing premise until CBM took more land.
-
”Shinnecock Hills was also very attractive, but I preferred not getting too close to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land. I offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 per acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.”
“However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck…This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Every one thought it more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way one culd get over the ground was on ponies.” – Charles Blair Macdonald “Scotland’s Gift”
So what do we know about the 120 acres of land that CBM first made an offer on at $200 per acre besides the fact that it was “near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay”?
I think we can safely assume that he thought those 120 acres were large enough to contain his ideal golf course. I think we can also safely assume that as David mentioned, there was not enough land for a real estate component on that plot associated with the fledgling club.
Did Macdonald spend enough time on that site to route an 18 hole golf course there prior to making the offer? Or did he just find natural landforms that generally convinced him the site would permit the building of his ideal holes? Did he use the conventional thinking of those days mentioned by Behr and others that a reasonably shaped and configured parcel of land with good natural features of about 110 acres was enough for the creation of a good golf course? Certainly the round number of 120 acres sounds vaguely familiar from other purchases clubs made around that time.
We also know that CBM determined within “a few weeks” after the real estate company purchased the land on October 28th, 1905 that he would purchase some of the holdings of the new realty company if he could. We also know that this 120 acres some three miles west of Sebonac Neck was his first choice for locating his golf course of the over 2000 acres of the Shinnecock Hills.
But, why would Macdonald obviously scrap his stated plans to provide plots for the Founders at the 120 acre site he wanted at first? Related, David asked yesterday why CBM would have directly competed with the developer when he purchased the Sebonac Neck site if indeed he intended the Surplus Land to go to plots that could be developed for the Founders?
The answer to both of those questions I think lies in understanding the fundamental differences between the two sites.
In 1906 after completing the extensive purchase, the real estate company engaged Olmsted and Vaux to survey and subdivide a good portion of the land they saw as most desirable for housing plots. From David Goddard’s “Colonizing Southampton”, “This was an ambitious undertaking and covered 1,320 acres in the central and northern sections. The subdivision was mapped out in eighty blocks that were further subdivided into 352 smaller lots varying in size from three to five acres. These were to be building lots. Withheld from the subdivision were the remaining parts of Sebonac Neck…”
The real estate company went on in that first year to build the Shinnecock Inn and make improvements to the roads and railway passes and a priority was now the North Highway, which ”despite earlier efforts, had never been sufficiently hardened. It was finally made usable, which is to say passable by automobiles.”
Despite these high ambitions, and despite the inevitable success of the new National Golf Links of America, it’s an interesting footnote that the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company went bankrupt in 1924, having sold virtually nothing but the National Golf Links to Macdonald. Again from Goddard’s book;
”Even the automobile, now the preferred mode of private transportation and one that vastly improved access to the Hills, seemed to have no effect on the real estate market. A comparison of the Olmsted and Vaux survey map of 1906 with a similar map put out for auction purposes in 1925 is instructive in this respect…It shows virtually no land sales. The eighty blocks covering thirteen hundred acres in the middle of the Hills were almost completely or more than 90 percent unsold.”
As seen below on the Olmsted and Vaux plan below the Shinnecock Canal was the western boundary of the company's holdings and was approximately three miles further west (closer to New York City) than the Shinnecock Inn. Given the very poor state of road travel on the northern part of the island at that time it seems likely this was a consideration.
But more important to the question of why Macdonald wouldn’t have included enough acreage building lots in his purchase offer on that first site is simply because they already existed in the developer’s plans. Any action by CBM in this regards would have been direct competition as that land was already being surveyed and plotted.
In comparison, the land of Sebonac Neck, the entire 450 acres was never surveyed and “Every one thought it more or less worthless”.
Here, CBM was able to secure the 200 acres he originally intended for his Club, and consistent with his original Agreement with the Founders. There was no intention to sell or build by the developer so any acreage left over could indeed be used by the Founders for building plots.
So what changed and when? Was it the amount of swampland that compromised the original vision? Was it the idea that every hole needed alternate routes (and therefore sufficient width to accommodate) that ended up eroding the intended hole boundaries such that homesites became unfeasible? We don’t know, truly, but I do agree with David that CBM’s primary focus was on his golf course and given his often unyielding nature, he was going to get his way.
As far as Macdonald’s statement that “we are not going into the hash or bed business”, certainly CBM never intended to build some resort with food and lodging for a club that was generally seasonal, even if they had the money to do so (which they didn’t). That was the purpose of locating the start and end holes adjacent to the new Shinnecock Inn, which did provide those services. So, I’m not sure what that statement has to do with CBM’s plan for providing building lots for the Founders so they could build their own cabins or other secondary residences for their weekend visits to the new club? They were two very different things.
***EDIT*** The sizing of the article and Olmsted/Vaux plan below came out wrong which I'll correct by this evening. Thanks.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5435682645_1793ba3022_b.jpg)
-
Mike, I wish that, instead of launching into your next tangent to try and justify your preconceived conclusion, that you and your 15 person, TEPaul led, offsite think-tank/circle jerk had taken a few minutes to answer my two simple and straight forward questions. Any chance of you doing so before you lead the website on this next wild goose chase?
-
David,
Ur arrogance and choice of language has done nothing but derail nice threads. Go wash ur mouth out with soap.
-
Thanks for the advice, Ben. But if you'd ever had the displeasure of being included in one of TEPaul's email chains, you'd know my language was descriptive and appropriate.
-
David,
David,
Well, it is clear that he intended to leave a little extra land from his 1912 missive, even if it wasn't specifically for members lots . . .
No, it isn't clear. The 1912 mention of surplus land verifies that CBM intended the founders to control the surplus land, if any. It says nothing about him intending to set aside surplus land when he agreed to purchase the NGLA land. This is where the 120 acre offer comes in. He obviously did not intend to set aside surplus land on that offer, but if there happened to be any left over, the founders would control it. Same for the NGLA plot. If there was surplus land, the founders would control it. If there wasn't surplus land, then there was nothing for them to control.
Let me ask you again, since you haven't answered. If CBM intended to carve out surplus land for the founders, then where was this land to be? And in answering, don't guess at CBM's intentions, but rather look at CBM's description of what he planned to do with the property and the actual the early maps of the property.
1. Most of the property was (and is) land-locked by Peconic Bay, Bullshead Bay, and Shinnecock Golf course.
2. The only border that had any potential flexibility was the western border (the Sebonac side.)
3. CBM indicated that he planned to shape the exact lines of property purchase around the needs of the golf course, and if one looks at this western border it was obviously drawn to fit snugly CBM's golf course.
So when you say it is clear that CBM intended to set aside land and you think it was for housing, where on this property, exactly, did CBM intend to set aside the land? Surely you don't think he was planning on placing houses between the holes do you?
When answering keep in mind that by mid-December 1906 CBM, HJW, Travis, and others had all been over the land repeated, had already described many details of the routing including the shape and length of the land to be used for the course, the starting and ending point, the quarter mile frontage along Peconic Bay, the mile of golf frontage on Bullshead Bay, the specific locations of three famous holes and one soon to be famous hole. Also keep in mind that they been at this for months, and had reportedly already been communicating about the course with overseas advisors, and that CBM already had a long list of ideal holes he planned to incorporate into this course.
Given all of this, where specifically on this property was CBM planning to set aside land for the founders? And if he was so planning, where all all these real estate lots now?
As to whether the 120 proves he was not interested in real estate, it does occur that a difference in the sites might have some bearing on it.
Of course the nature of the 120 acre site was the reason that CBM only attempted to buy 120 acres! He obviously thought that that land was such that he only needed 120 acres to build his ideal course, and he was willing to let housing and such take care of itself via outside interests. He was trying to build a golf course, not start a real estate development. That is my point. Likewise, it was the nature of the NGLA site which lead him to purchase 205 acres. He needed 205 acres for his ideal golf course. Look at how closely the lines are drawn around the course. Both were need driving purchases, and the need was golf, not real estate!
Of course, you could also argue that CBM dodged a bullet, not taking a smaller site in a real estate development in favor of a more secluded one, and perhaps saw the advantages at that time of being away in nature (some of his words from the documents) when playing golf. In short, he probably realized that an ideal golf course shouldn't be shoe horned in with housing. So, you may be right that any real housing went away at the very beginning of buying this site, although CBM did mention the surplus land in 1912, albeit, to be used as the Founders wished, and even the tone )this turned out to be true" does tell us he may have been skeptical or wary of his ability to pull that off while still building the ideal golf course.
This is a very good point, and one that cuts directly against Mike's latest wild goose chase. CBM was very much attracted to and appreciated the secluded nature of the site. "When playing golf you want to be alone with nature." Given how CBM described even the early routing of the course, it is really absurd to think that CBM was going to try and cram 60 residential lots on to this site.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
David,
Regarding CBM's intentions for providing a real estate component on the current site, why would he say in 1912 that there is extra land but the Founders haven't yet determined what to do with it? Why would he identify the Founders as the decision makers for that land if it wasn't to be their's specifically as opposed to the Board of Directors or the membership in total?
Jim, I don't know the details of NGLA's membership/partnership agreement, but it looks to me like the majority of the power rested with the founders and not the associate members. For example, if I recall correctly only the founders voted approving the sale of memberships. So it doesn't seem a stretch to leave decisions such as land use to the founders as opposed to the associate memberships. Some clubs are still structured between members who have a voice in such decisions and those who don't.
So it seems that the reason is that the founders controlled the surplus land was because that is the nature of the deal he struck with them when they signed on. If they was any surplus land, it was theirs to do with as they decided. As I have said before, had they wanted to try to build houses between the golf holes I suppose they could have tried to force that, provided that they did not impinge on CBM's golf course. For that matter, as stakeholders they may have been able to plow under the golf course and turn the whole thing into a real estate development. But whatever their rights under their agreement, CBM did not go out and intentionally carve out a real estate component on this property. He bought the land he needed for his course. Whatever scraps were left over went to the founders to do with as they pleased.
Let me ask you the same questions I have asked the others? If CBM intended to include a real estate component on this particular property, then where, exactly, was it to be located? If in 1912, the "surplus land" was intended to be used for real estate, then where are these lots now?
-
I don't know. It's clear he did not feel obligated to provide lots for the Founders, and he justifies that in his initial note, right? The $1,000 subscription is intended to advance the sport in this land as opposed to be an investment.
That said, the simple fact that he identifies the Founders as the people deciding the fate of surplus land implies pretty clearly that part of the agreement to become a Founder was some real estate. Once you're splitting some smaller portion among 60 people, it's pretty easy to imagine this group simply agreeing to let it remain with the club.
If he'd altogether abandoned the notion of providing real estate as the carrot for the $1,000 check, why would he address it at all in 1912?
-
Two thoughts not related to anyone's posts in particular:
1. It occurs to me that perhaps all of this back and forth comes down to one issue, and it is one that has haunted these "discussions" for years:
When CBM agreed to purchase the NGLA land, did he already have a general idea of how his golf course would fit on that land, or not?
- If you believe he did have at least a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land before he secured the property, then it is impossible to believe that CBM intended to include a large housing component on the land, because there simply was no place for it.
- If you don't believe he had at least a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land before he secured the property, then you open up the possibility that he originally intended to use a large chunk of land for housing, but that somewhere during the process the realities of the actual site got in the way.
Is that a fair assessment of the fundamental difference of opinion here?
2. I just took a look in Scotland's Gift and noticed something I hadn't before. The 1904 Agreement copied in Scotland's Gift is different than the Agreement included in the appendix to the 1912 letter. Specifically, stricken language is basically what I have previously indicated was just a"suggestion:
- Gone is the information about adding associate members.
- Gone is the information about having the associate members build the clubhouse.
- Gone is the description of the bond scheme.
- Gone is the hypothetical about the real estate scheme.
- Gone is the language about how, "This is only a suggestion. The details can be worked out later."
- He left in the part about how the money was intended to advance the sport, and not as an investment.
- He left in the part about leaving the entire matter in CBM's hands.
I guess it is possible that CBM and/or his editors chose to selectively edit out these portions before printing the Agreement in his book, but I don't see why they would have. It is also possible that, ultimately, that when it came time to "work out the details" a subsequent agreement was written that did not contain any of the suggestions from the earlier letter. Obviously 1906 newspaper accounts they were going off of the original language, but perhaps the misunderstandings in the newspaper cued CBM to clean up the language and take out the misleading "suggestions."
_______________________________________
Jim, I think you are reading too much into the 1912 mention. He didn't mention housing, and he doesn't say they could split it in fee simple, he only said that the decision of what to do with the surplus was up to them. We'd have to see the actual agreement to know what they ahd the power to do or not do.
-
Mike, I wish that, instead of launching into your next tangent to try and justify your preconceived conclusion, that you and your 15 person, TEPaul led, offsite think-tank/circle jerk had taken a few minutes to answer my two simple and straight forward questions. Any chance of you doing so before you lead the website on this next wild goose chase?
David,
I'm sorry, but this isn't a courtroom and I'm pretty sure I'm not sworn in and legally directed to answer each and every leading question so you can control the narrative here. ::)
Besides, with all of the invective to wade through it's sometimes quite difficult to sort out your legitimate questions from purely rhetorical ones. If you're expecting dialogue with me I'd appreciate dropping that old, tired routine, thanks.
As far as answering your questions I thought I was responding to your contention that the fact Macdonald made an offer for 120 acres at the site near the Shinnecock Canal prior to securing 200 acres at Sebonac Neck was proof that he had already dropped the real estate portion of his plan. Instead I pointed out the major differences between the intended usage for each site by the developer.
So, still hopeful we can move forward more constructively, let me respectfully try to answer what you wrote me yesterday which I'll color in blue.
Two questions:
1. We agree that by December 15, 2006 CBM and others had already been going over the land very carefully and that they already knew (at least) the beginning and end point, the length of the property, the use of the 1/4 mile on Peconic Bay, the mile of golf frontage on Bullshead Bay, the narrow width, the location of at least three famous and one soon to be famous holes, etc. It seems safe to assume they had some other ideas as well. You think that CBM meant for the 1904 example to apply to NGLA. If so, where exactly was CBM planning on putting the 90 acres of housing?
I think Macdonald did indeed have the sites for certain holes spotted out and basically knew the landforms he intended using. However, I do think in his mind at that juncture he felt that the 200 acres was well sufficient for some combination of golf and Founders plots, even if it was simply an estimate at that point. After all, just two years prior he had written that he'd need 110 acres for the golf course and even advised other clubs accordingly. Even after the creation of the National in 1915 Max Behr repeated the standard thinking of needing around 110 acres for a course in that article you cited and as you know, CBM himself continued to advise clubs that around 120 acres was sufficient.
I think a combination of two things happened. First, I think more of the acreage was swampy and unusable than perhaps CBM realized. The 1908 article during the construction phase is certainly evidence of that. From the article;
"A rank waste of underbrush, woods, and marsh land has yielded to the will of man unitl now the end is in sight."
"Acting as co-workers with Mr. Macdonald are Mr. Whigham, Walter J. Travis, and Findlay S. Douglas. Their suggestions and ideas have been carefully carried out by Mortimer Payne, the Southampton veteran...Few persons have any conception of the difficulties he has had to surmount. Several low spots containing water to a depth of four feet have been drained, filled in, and left dry as a bone."
Also, I think that the plan to create alternative routes for the weaker player on every hole meant that the course became effectively much wider than originally estimated. From the terrific 1907 Walter Travis article;
"Now in the laying out of the new course this underlying principle will be steadily kept in view, so that the average player may be enabled to play every hole - not so well as the better player, but without getting into trouble except from bad play. In other words, there will be offered an alternative way of playing the hole - but it must not be forgotten that such shirking of the proper shot demanded will involve either the loss of a stroke or a very fairly executed second shot to make up for it."
As far as where it was to be located the December 16th 1906 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article stated;
"While the matter is not settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon." I think that was the plan at that point.
2. You've admitted that the language in the Tribune article came from the 1904 letter. Do you now agree that the information in the other papers most likely came from the same? If not, what is your reasoning?
Yes, that exact language was certainly from the 1904 Agreement with the Founders but why again was it showing up in late 1906 if something had already markedly changed from that original Agreement? Especially in the press as each and every New York paper printed some version of the plan.
But that was hardly the only source of information. In fact, the news stories of December 15th, 16th and beyond were chock full of info from CBM himself talking about the land he secured and his plans for it. At that time, Macdonald had just secured the property and was very effective in using the press to promote his new club venture. That same December 16th Brooklyn Daily News article included the following reference to a November article;
"A week ago last Saturday afternoon Charles B. Macdonald, in answer to a question put to him before the crowd in the lounging room at the Garden City clubhouse, said that he had inspected land for the ideal links project in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills. That admission would scarcely be worth repeating inasmuch as it was printed in this column as far back as last spring, but for one fact; the ideas of the project have been undergoing a change. Months ago the Eagle expressed the opinion that the distance from New York to the Southampton region would put it out of possibilities, but there is now reason to alter that view. It is a year and a half since the plan was launched and Long Island real estate values have since jumped alarmingly. In the second place, calculations have shown that such a clubhouse as must be built could not be self supporting except by week end business when players would remain two or three nights and take their meals at the club. Without much doubt the subscribers to the new club, some? of whom are members at Garden City will retain their connection there for midweek play and eventually seek a more distant ideal course for their Saturday and Sunday golf."
Along with CBM as a source, that same stry also quotes a discussion with Club Officials like Watson.
What's more, I think if the newspapers all reported something CBM had not intended in his Agreement with the Founders by late 1906 he would have been all over them demanding a retraction, but of course, that never happened.
Hope that helps.
*Note - I'll be away for the weekend so I'll respond to any followups as time permits next week.
-
Is that a fair assessment of the fundamental difference of opinion here?
I don't think so. I don't think anyone believes that as of late 1906 CBM didn't have a good idea of where the golf course would go on that property. I think the difference of opinion between you and Mike is that you generally don't like each other.
-
Jim, I think you are reading too much into the 1912 mention. He didn't mention housing, and he doesn't say they could split it in fee simple, he only said that the decision of what to do with the surplus was up to them. We'd have to see the actual agreement to know what they ahd the power to do or not do.
Could be...if Founders is synonymous with Board of Directors or Executive Committee or something like that, then I'd agree. It wasn't though and your last point in Bullet 2 - He left in the part about leaving the entire matter in CBM's hands supports that this surplus land, however much or little, was committed to the equivalent of an outside entity.
-
I don't think so. I don't think anyone believes that as of late 1906 CBM didn't have a good idea of where the golf course would go on that property. I think the difference of opinion between you and Mike is that you generally don't like each other.
Jim, I think you've got the second half right. But as for the first part, I disagree. While Mike would like to have it both ways, he apparently doesn't think CBM had much of an idea of how the holes would fit on the property in December 1906. Specifically,
- He thinks that, after already carefully studying the land for months and having other notable experts study the land, they hadn't yet figured out that some of the property was swampy and unusable.
- He thinks that, after placing many of the holes and outlining the general footprint of the course, that CBM was still clinging to the notion that any course could fit on 110 acres. ("[J]ust two years prior he had written that he'd need 110 acres for the golf course and even advised other clubs accordingly. . . .")
- He thinks that CBM hadn't yet realized that holes with alternate routes were wider than holes without alternate routes, this even though CBM had already written about the need for alternate routes.
- He envisions that the houses were going to fit around the outside of the course, even though CBM specifically indicates that the exact borders of the course would be tailored to the needs of the golf course.
- etc.
Could be...if Founders is synonymous with Board of Directors or Executive Committee or something like that, then I'd agree. It wasn't though and your last point in Bullet 2 - He left in the part about leaving the entire matter in CBM's hands supports that this surplus land, however much or little, was committed to the equivalent of an outside entity.
NGLA had a Board of Directors which was elected by the Founders. Sometimes major decisions are left not to the Directors, but rather to the entirety of the voting members, in this case the Founders. As I said, I think this was the case at NGLA regarding the sale of memberships, and it looks to have been the case disposal of surplus land. The Founders were by no means equivalent to an "outside entity," they were the controlling members of the club, with the power at least to control the sale of memberships, determine the makeup of the board, and determine disposition of the club property.
If you really think that this land was committed to an outside entity, what happened to it? Why is it still under club control?
-
David,
You understand I don't consider the Founders and outside entity...but their role in determining the use of the surplus land sure doesn't match the idea that "the entire matter was in CBM's hands" does it?
The reality, obviously, is that they bought 200 acres and didn't use all of it. Any idea how much was left over?
-
Jim, The "general scheme" of finding and creating the golf course was to be left entirely in CBM's hands, not all the club business forever thereafter. After the course finished, the disposition of the surplus land was left to the Founders, as were other aspects of club business. I don't see what this has to do with whether or not CBM intended to specifically set aside a large parcel for housing on the NGLA parcel.
As for how much surplus land existed. I believe that Jim Kennedy used a planimeter to determine that about 180 acres were used for the golf course. (I think I did the same experiment and came up with very slightly less, although I excluded certains areas (such as areas between holes) that were obviously not available for housing.
Essentially, the only areas not used for the golf course are bit of land below the bluff used for the practice area, and the bit of land to the right of the 17th hole. Neither of these areas were large enough for a large housing component, and they weren't the types of parcels that were developed for real estate in 1906.
Despite Mike's claim to the contrary, there is no "border" land appropriate for housing, and there never was.
Anyone who agrees with Mike that CBM intended to fit the course on 110 acres should go to a planimeter app and try to measure out a 110 acre course fitting the December description. Keep in mind that CBM already told us . . .
- The course stretched for 2 miles.
- It started and finished near Shinnecock Inn i.e. the location of the current 9th green and 10th tee.)
- It fronted Bullshead Bay for a mile. (i.e. the stretch of holes from the Eden to the Leven.)
- It fronted Peconic Bay for a quarter of a mile (i.e. the current 18th hole.
- The locations of, at the very least, the Alps, the Redan, the Eden, and the Cape had already been specifically identified.
What you end up with is an impossibly narrow stretch of land (too narrow for one hole even, much less the holes CBM envisioned) with a huge bulge in the middle, where the already identified holes are located.
Like an extremely skinny snake who had just swallowed whole a fat rabbit.
-
I think a combination of two things happened. First, I think more of the acreage was swampy and unusable than perhaps CBM realized.
Where is this unusable swampland, and how did it act as a detriment to the course CBM envisioned? By your own choice of quotes it sounds as if CBM had "drained and filled" and used the swampland for the golf course, thus increasing the usable acreage, not decreasing it. And a number holes incorporate the swampland into the golf holes, so again no loss of usable land. So how did his use of the swampland make housing impossible?
Also, I think that the plan to create alternative routes for the weaker player on every hole meant that the course became effectively much wider than originally estimated.
CBM's ideas on providing alternate routes of play predate the purchase, and many of his ideal holes necessarily incorporate alternate routes, so it is a little hard to accept that he hadn't considered this.
Are you really suggesting after going over this land, that CBM, HJW, Travis, and others had no idea how wide these holes were to be, or where they sat with relation to each other, or that alternate routes created wider holes? It makes no sense.
Also what of the holes he had already identified? The Alps Hole and the Cape hole (and the others along Bullshead Bay) are at two ends of the width spectrum, with the Redan basically in between. Do you think he was going to make narrow these holes down and run housing up the middle of the property? It doesn't fit.
As far as where it was to be located the December 16th 1906 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article stated;
"While the matter is not settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon." I think that was the plan at that point.
First, the Eagle article contains no new information on this issue. It just paraphrases the same information as the two from the day before. And you've acknowledged that this information was left over from the 1904 Agreement.
Second, given what CBM had already said about the course it is impossible for CBM to have had room for housing on the "bordering land." Draw it out yourself.
Yes, that exact language was certainly from the 1904 Agreement with the Founders but why again was it showing up in late 1906 if something had already markedly changed from that original Agreement? Especially in the press as each and every New York paper printed some version of the plan.
I already explained why. It is because the information in all the papers comes (directly or indirectly) from the Notice of Payment Due and 1904 Subscription Agreement sent to the prospective members by CBM.
You mention other sources of information and it is true there are other source s including extensive quotes by CBM and HJW. Notably, none of the stuff from Dec. 1906 (as opposed copied from the 1904 agreement) mentions housing available on site for the members. In fact it makes clear that NGLA wasn't going to get into that business.
______________________________________________________________
Lastly Mike, I know in the past you like to draw these things out, so I encourage you to draw this one out.
- Draw a box around the area already described (Cape, Alps, Redan, Eden) and a line along 1/4 mile of Peconic Bay and Bullshead Bay all the way to the Eden Green, then up to and around the 9th green and 10th tee.
-That gives you the border on one side, and land you definitely have to include.
- Now adjust your western border on the parts remaining to try and figure out how a 110 acre course can fit, leaving enough width for an out and back routing.
It can't be done.
Here is a simple online planimeter: http://acme.com/planimeter/
-
Patrick,
Usually when one is losing a debate the next step is to impugn the motivations or the personal knowledge of their opponent, suggesting by implication that they are somehow "cheating".
Mike,
Who accused you of cheating ?
I asked you if others were contributing to your data base and in a round about response, you indicated that others had indeed supplied you with information.
Thanks for being candid and for letting me know that the Merionettes are still active.
Everything I've posted here is from my own research which includes contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles unearthed primarily by Joe Bausch, CBM's book, a book by David Goddard called "Colonizing Southampton". I've tried to rely on facts and not conjecture and have preferred to let what was said, particularly by Macdonald himself as well as the timing of events over a number of years guide my research. Of course, everyone is free to interpret these facts and evidence as they wish. The best research builds on the shoulders of those who've come before, frankly.
I have also been part of a private email thread with about 15 addressees (some on GCA and some not) that was initiated by Tom Paul. Frankly, Tom is much more into the history of the people who made up that world than I am but he is not feeding me any information to post and others here on that email can weigh in to correct me if they think I'm simply being a mouthpiece for Tom or any others.
However, in an email discussing David's response to my post (and Jeff's) yesterday regarding the real estate component, something clicked for me last night that I'm not sure Tom or others understood when I responded which I'll be posting about today. Discussion is sometimes the mother of inspiration and frankly what David mentioned about CBM's initial offer to purchase 120 acres has me much more convinced than ever that I'm on the right track.
Forgetting for a second that you're a lefty, you also tend to approach research from a different direction, having drawn your conclusions and then looking for and posting only that which supports your predisposition.
I wouldn't characterize you as a "neutral" researcher.
Wouldn't you agree ?
-
Mike & David,
It would be interesting to see the 405 acre plot boundaries.
Does anyone have that map/schematic
-
Was it 405 or 450? I was thinking 450 but haven't gone back and checked. Regardless, from the description it sounds like it was the entire area of NGLA, Sebonac, and the land in between. I think the only question is whether the land just west of the current 9th hole was available.
-
David,
I think the general consensus was the current NGLA property plus Sebonack, but I wonder if it didn't include the land West of # 8 fairway and # 9 and less land on or overlooking Peconic Bay.
I wonder if the land extended North of RT 27 and West to Cold Spring Pond.
Has anyone ever defined/illusrtrated the parcel that was available to CBM ?
We know what he selected, but do we know what was available to him ?
You'd have to wonder why he wouldn't select the land where Sebonack's current clubhouse is located, if not for golf, for his clubhouse and one would think that he might also choose the highest points on the property, not far from Sebonack's 10th green.
-
Patrick,
Isn't it the height of inanity for you to paraphrase and repeat CBM's quotes, and offer opinions that what he said is "correct", and ascribe ideas to me that I don't have, and draw ludicrously obvious conclusions? Why bother?
Patrick's premise:
The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.
CBM says in Scotland's Gift that "We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once,"
Bryan,
Note the words, "at once"
A shortage of funds precluded CBM from building a clubhouse, so he decided to use a convenient nearby Inn
He goes on to say "our intention was to have our first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn"
That's correct.
You wouldn't expect him to have golfers walk 500 yards or 1,700 yards to the first tee, would you
In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay
.....................................
As for the rest, see below.
Patrick's premise:
The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.
.............................
In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay
Another moronic observation followed by your rote, unproven assertion about the always intended site.
He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned.
They didn't own the land near the Shinnecock Inn.
Another unproven assertion or would you like to bring forward the deeds?
But, if they did, why would they abandon a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn, just because the Shinnecock Inn burned down.
I don't know why they abandoned the site for the club-house "near" the Shinnecock Inn. CBM didn't say. But he does say he abandoned it; that suggests to me that he owned it and originally intended to use it as the club-house site?
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have remained intact and available for construction.
Perhaps you should rewrite this sentence so it makes sense. It's nonsensical as is.
But, CBM built his clubhouse where he always intended it to be.
Restating your opinion multiple times doesn't make it any more true. You have presented no evidence to support the opinion.
In addition, even if NGLA owned the land behind the 9th green, CBM, with his ego, would never build a clubhouse in the shadow of the Shinnecock clubhouse, a club he was recently thrown out of
Another unsupported opinion. He didn't mind intending to start and end his course there though.
Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site?
Even If they owned the land, why not build the clubhouse there ?
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have had no impact on the land, and more importantly, they had a major highway leading up to their front door, so why abandon that theoretical site and build your clubhouse on the other side of the property unless you always intended to build your clubhouse on a site that evena ten year old could figure out as the best site for a clubhouse.
He said he "abandoned" his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn. Seems likely he owned it. I guess you'd have to ask CBM why he intended to build his originally intended club-house on a site near the Shinnecock Inn. Maybe, initially, he didn't have the insight of a ten year old about siting club-houses.
You'd have to be a moron to think that he'd build a clubhouse on land they didn't own, with the Shinnecock clubhouse and the Shinnecock members looking down on him/them
So, you're asserting he abandoned his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn because he didn't own it? Could you please bring forward the deeds. Hard to believe he would say that he abandoned the site when he didn't own it.
Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning. When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay.
Bryan, They didn't own the land
Do you have the deeds?
He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.
They abandoned the Shinnecock Inn site because that site was a default site, a site of convenience.
They didn't own the land near the 9th green.
But, they did own the land where the current clubhouse is located.
In addition, the routing of #'s 1 and 18 was deliberate in that perfect land for golf was abandoned in favor of creating a donut hole where the clubhouse was always intended to reside.
When's the last time you heard of someone constructing a building on land they didn't own ?,
He didn't abandon the Shinnecock Inn site. He abandoned a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn. No matter how many times you say that they didn't own the land there, you have offered no proof of what they did own. Hard to imagine that he would say he "abandoned" a site he didn't own or have an option on.
-
It was said multiple times that the intention was to build the course on 110 acres with 5 acres for the club-house and ancillary buildings and 90 acres for land for the founders. It was also said that they needed to buy 200 or more acres. Curious that they didn't do the math and say 205 or more acres.
When do you suppose in the process that CBM determined that he couldn't actually fit his ideal course on 110 acres? Would it have been after the course was designed and he had the site surveyed? Were CBM or the others experts on estimating acreage; 110 or 205 acres covers a lot of ground? I doubt that most people could guesstimate areas that large.
If we take CBM's simplistic description of the property as a rectangle 2 miles long by 4 acres wide that most likely meant the rectangle was 280 yards wide. If you ascribe a 100 yard wide corridor going out and another 100 yard wide corridor coming back in, that leaves a corridor of say 40 yards on either side. Given that site was 2 miles long in the simplistic description, the exterior corridors could support close to 60 lots. Now, I don't believe for a moment that the site was actually a rectangle. I think CBM simplified it that way for the press and potential members. But, in simplistic mathematical terms I can see how he thought there would be enough rooms on a 205 acre site.
Of course, that would all go awry in a real world routing on a real world topographical site. Perhaps he knew the course wan't going to work on a 110 acre site when he finished the routing. Or, maybe it only became clear when he had the site surveyed afterwards. Or, maybe the 1.5 acre plots were just a come-on for the investors and were never intended to be real. Given that he made an early offer on the 120 acre site near the canal suggests to me that initially he may not have understood that his ideal course of template holes using some existing natural features wasn't going to fit on that small a plot, although, I guess, Merion subsequently managed to get a pretty good, although tightly constrained, course on 120 acres.
-
Bryan,
Neither Macdonald nor his club ever owned the Shinnecock Inn although as CBM stated they did intend to use it for their clubhouse in the earliest years of the new club. More on that tomorrow..
Once the routing was established and finalized in 1907 (and the land purchase cimpleted to the exact metes and bounds) and the Inn burned in 1908, there were only 2 logical places to locate a clubhouse, right? And I'm not sure how far beyond today's 9th green the NGLA property extended so unless the developer agreed to rebuild the Inn after the fire (and it was woefully under-insured) there may have realistically been only one possible location available on the original purchased acreage.
I agree that it would be useful if we had the exact original boundaries at hand for this discussion but I would agree with you that we simply don't know when Macdonald abandoned his plan for housing.
I just don't see where there is evidence of that by Dec 1906. If the NYC newspapers grossly mis-communicated his plans...actually..his agreement with the clubs Founders, is there any doubt Macdonald would have demanded a retraction?
-
Patrick,
Isn't it the height of inanity for you to paraphrase and repeat CBM's quotes, and offer opinions that what he said is "correct", and ascribe ideas to me that I don't have, and draw ludicrously obvious conclusions?
Why bother?
Bryan,
Because colossal morons, such as yourself need to be led to the logical conclusion through repetition.
Patrick's premise:
The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.
...........................
In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay
Another moronic observation followed by your rote, unproven assertion about the always intended site.
It's not an uproven assertion, it's a logical conclusion based upon a number of facts.
He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned.
They didn't own the land near the Shinnecock Inn.
Another unproven assertion or would you like to bring forward the deeds?
My source regarding the ownership of the land comes from NGLA. What's your source ?
But, if they did, why would they abandon a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn, just because the Shinnecock Inn burned down.
I don't know why they abandoned the site for the club-house "near" the Shinnecock Inn. CBM didn't say. But he does say he abandoned it; that suggests to me that he owned it and originally intended to use it as the club-house site?
If that "suggests to you", then show us where that site, "near" the Shinnecock Inn, was.
Remember, it's the shaded area that NGLA owned, not the white areas.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
Here's the map depicting the land they owned, show us where the clubhouse site "near" the Shinnecock Inn is.
And, remember, the clubhouse is rather massive with a significant parking lot.
So show us on this map where that site, "near" the Shinnecock Inn is located.
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn had no influence on the land, whichwould have remained intact and available for construction.
Perhaps you should rewrite this sentence so it makes sense. It's nonsensical as is.
Done, in italics and underlined above
But, CBM built his clubhouse where he always intended it to be.
Restating your opinion multiple times doesn't make it any more true.
You have presented no evidence to support the opinion.
I've presented the evidence, you just don't want me to be right
1. They didn't own the land
2 CBM designed the routing such that a donut hole for the clubhouse and parking was left between # 1 & # 18 for his clubhouse.
3 He wouldn't build a clubhouse that would be looked down upon by the Shinnecock clubhouse and members
4 Only a colossal moron, given the choice, would site the clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn, versus overlooking Peconic Bay
In addition, even if NGLA owned the land behind the 9th green, CBM, with his ego, would never build a clubhouse in the shadow of the Shinnecock clubhouse, a club he was recently thrown out of
Another unsupported opinion. He didn't mind intending to start and end his course there though.
Wrong again, he never intended to start and finish by the Shinnecock Inn, that was a only temporary convenience due to lack of funds.
Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site?
Even If they owned the land, why not build the clubhouse there ?
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have had no impact on the land, and more importantly, they had a major highway leading up to their front door, so why abandon that theoretical site and build your clubhouse on the other side of the property unless you always intended to build your clubhouse on a site that evena ten year old could figure out as the best site for a clubhouse.
He said he "abandoned" his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn. Seems likely he owned it.
But he didn't.
I guess you'd have to ask CBM why he intended to build his originally intended club-house on a site near the Shinnecock Inn.
Maybe, initially, he didn't have the insight of a ten year old about siting club-houses.
You'd have to be a moron to think that he'd build a clubhouse on land they didn't own, with the Shinnecock clubhouse and the Shinnecock membership looking down on him/them
So, you're asserting he abandoned his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn because he didn't own it?
Could you please bring forward the deeds.
Why don't you show us, on the map below, where that parcel of land, large enough to accomodate his massive clubhouse, parking lot and access roads was going to be.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
Hard to believe he would say that he abandoned the site when he didn't own it.
Some theorize that he intended to buy additional land not far from RT 27, to provide access..
But, since he routed the golf course "FIRST", that should make even a colossal moron such as yourself wonder, why did he leave such an
enormous gap between the 18th hole and the 1st hole, if not to accomodate the siting of his enormous clubhouse and parking lot
Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning. When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay.
Bryan, They didn't own the land
Do you have the deeds?
He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.
They abandoned the Shinnecock Inn site because that site was a default site, a site of convenience.
They didn't own the land near the 9th green.
But, they did own the land where the current clubhouse is located.
In addition, the routing of #'s 1 and 18 was deliberate in that perfect land for golf was abandoned in favor of creating a donut hole where the clubhouse was always intended to reside.
When's the last time you heard of someone constructing a building on land they didn't own ?,
He didn't abandon the Shinnecock Inn site. He abandoned a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn.
So show us where that site, large enough to accomodate his clubhouse and parking lot, is ?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
No matter how many times you say that they didn't own the land there, you have offered no proof of what they did own.
My source comes from NGLA.
In addition, here's the map reflecting what they owned.
What are your proofs ?
Hard to imagine that he would say he "abandoned" a site he didn't own or have an option on.
Oh, so now you're stating that he had an option on additional land.
Where did he say that ?
When you add up all of the factors, even a moron would conclude that the current site is the site that CBM always intended for his clubhouse.
Only a colossal moron would argue otherwise.
[/quote]
[/quote]
-
Couldn't he have located his clubhouse in the large gap between 5 and 14 and just renumbered the holes?
Not in front of a computer now but wasn't there a proposed locker house slightly nearer todays 10th tee from the Shinnecock Inn drawn on the August 1907 drawing that was published after the routing was finalized? Was that ever built?
-
Couldn't he have located his clubhouse in the large gap between 5 and 14 and just renumbered the holes?
Mike,
Would you deem that location "near" the Shnnecock Inn ?
Not in front of a computer now but wasn't there a proposed locker house slightly nearer todays 10th tee from the Shinnecock Inn drawn on the August 1907 drawing that was published after the routing was finalized? Was that ever built?
Yes, it's the very, very, very small halfway house.
There is NO ROOM for a clubhouse at that location
-
Here is the first drawing of the NGLA routing that was published with an associated article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on August 26th, 1907. Note the "Locker House" right behind the original 18th green near the Shinnecock Inn, as well as a "Pump House" between 5 and 14. Was the Locker House ever built and was it on land that NGLA owned? Exactly how much land behind today's 9th green was in the original purchase?
By the way, does anyone know if that scorecard drawing that is being displayed illustrates the land owned by NGLA from actual metes and bounds or is simply a caricature with shadowing for aesthetic considerations?
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19070826CROP_zpsgdzh0hh9.jpg~original)
Also, it does sound as though the Shinnecock Inn was built for longevity, as well as intended for use by those travelling out to NGLA as seen in the article below. Related, David Goddard's book "Colonizing Southampton" mentions, "A new site for the hotel was selected a little to the east of the Hills depot and at the southern tip of the projected National Golf Links. This was no doubt deliberate. In 1907, Charles Macdonald had no immediate plans for a club house, and it would have made eminent sense to Redfield that the many well-heeled golfers expected to descend on the National would need a place to stay." It was insured for only $51,000 and was never rebuilt after it burned.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8865/17337077319_a5077e121f_z.jpg)
-
Here is a better image of the April 6th, 1907 article showing the Olmsted/Vaux plan for developement of the Shinnecock Hills region. (Sorry for the need to scroll but the article is large) You'll note that the concentration of building lots are in the central area extending all of the way to the Shinnecock Canal to the west (where Macdonald first offered to buy 120 acres but was rejected) but that no development was planned for the area of Sebonac Neck in the northeast, as CBM told us that everyone thought the land was worthless and that it had never been surveyed.
The article itself is a good one for a better understanding of what was proposed.
Where do folks think that 120 acre site might have been that was Macdonald's first choice? We know CBM told us that the dunes and soil were better on the north side of the island than the south side so I'm thinking it had to have been north of the railroad tracks. We also know that the "North Road" hadn't yet been made passable in the 1905-06 timeframe when CBM made that offer, so it's unlikely that would have been a barrier, especially given the extremely limited traffic and the idea at the time that roads made very good hazards.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19070406_zpsv9w3kgxq.jpg~original)
-
Here's a 1904 topographic map of the area near the Shinnecock Canal, also showing that the land of Sebonac Neck had already also been surveyed at that time. It looks to be similar type land based on the comparative topos. Is there anything anyone sees except a potential planned housing development that would have prevented CBM from building a course on 120 acres of the land along the North Shore in 1905/06?
I wonder if Macdonald meant that the area of Sebonac Neck "had never been surveyed" for housing? That would make sense as the rest of the Shinnecock Hills were surveyed for housing in 1906/07 by Olmsted and Vaux.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Please tell me that you're not relying on the sketch below to prove that NGLA didn't own the land behind the 9th green. It doesn't even have a scale on it, nor is it in the context of a map of the area, nor does it say that it depicts the property boundaries. Why don't you get the deeds to prove your point that there was no land that NGLA owned behind the 9th green.
Who owns the land between the 9th green and the highway to the south today? How many acres are there?
You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you. Or are you saying that CBM was wrong and that he didn't own a site near the Shinnecock Inn?
Mike,
I think everyone knows that NGLA didn't own the Shinnecock Inn. I hope you're not catching the Mucci disease of stating the obvious. ;D
You're not really going to start again on the location of the Canal site are you? We beat that to death a couple of years ago.
The other sketch showing the Locker House behind the 9th green is also not to scale (even worse) but does suggest that he owned enough land behind the 9th green to house the Locker House. Did I not read somewhere that it was to become an adjunct to the club-house?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
-
Just dropping in to point out that the map in Bryan's last post, which has been trotted out a number of times during this thread, bears a striking resemblance to the original plaster model of the course.
Nov. 1916 - Golf Illustrated
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20Nov.%201916_zps40hjew3u.png)
-
Sven,
Very cool, thanks.
Bryan,
I may be suffering from Mucci's penchant for re-stating the obvious, it wouldn't be the first time. ;)
The following article from December 17th, 1906 mentions the Inn, the Locker House, and the possibility of housing lots/cabins.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
As far as your contention that the site Macdonald originally wanted for his ideal course near the Shinnecock Canal has been "beat to death", I'd contend instead that it was obscured in the dust of miles of sandy roads, bridges to nowhere and logical dead ends.
I posted that topo from 1904 so that any architects here might weigh in on what landforms looked favorable, as well as to show those following along at home that the land of Sebonac Neck had already been previously surveyed, at least topographically. I think CBM meant that it had never been surveyed for housing plots, to contrast it to the 120 acre site near the Shinnecock Canal Macdonald wanted originally that the developer/real estate company rejected.
We've also since learned that the "North Highway", the place where Patrick was imagining today's LIE ;D, only was made passable for automobiles in 1907, but not when CBM was making his original offer. You may also note that in 1904, (and for years after) that North Highway ran nowhere near as far North and West as it was projected in the Olmstead/Vaux map...it was only in the 1940s that it got extended further north and west so there was plenty of room where I originally suggested that the course might have been located. For reference, I've included another topo from the end of WWII below that shows highway development as proposed by Olmstead/Vaux never happened up to that point. Unfortunately it doesn't show as far west as the canal.
I'm still curious to try and determine what land in Shinnecock Hills CBM picked first for his ideal course and I'm curious about the timing and the process. Did he route a course there before making an offer? Did he have it toopgraphically surveyed to smaller increments and was any clearing necessary?
In fact, one outstanding question in my mind around the Sebonac Neck site is simply; did the clearing of the land (recall that it was unwalkable swamp and wasteland and overgrown with thickets) take place prior to December 1906 or after?
1944 Topo also showing housing development at that date.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7738/17340592509_a1ddc74cf7_b.jpg)
-
Mike, is it really so hard for you to provide the proper citations for the articles you post? All that is required is the date and newspaper. The latest article, from Dec. 17, 1906, is from the NY Evening Telegram. See how easy that is?
You keep mentioning "cabins" but this article makes no mention of "cabins" although it does seem to draw on the Eagle report about "cottages" from the day before. In fact it seems to be drawing heavily on the information in the articles from the few days before.
As for the location of the Canal site, I agree with Bryan. It has been beaten to death in years past. All we know is that it was near the canal, and far away from Shinnecock Golf Club.
Sven, Thanks for pointing that out.
-
David,
Sure, and I'm pretty sure I've included attribution information for virtually everything I've posted but missed that one. Also, I generally think of cabins and cottages as pretty interchangeable, don't you agree? Which one would you prefer I use and I'll try to be consistent.
For completeness, the 1904 and 1944 Topos with Roads and Housing Development through those dates is purchased from historicaerials.com but others can look them up online to track road construction over the years and don't need to purchase anything.
As far as the location of where CBM wanted his ideal course originally, don't you have any intellectual curiosity about the matter? I sure do. Last discussion got so far offtrack with Patrick trying to show us active, busy highways ran through the area and you ridiculing me for even speculating as to be a waste of Ran's server space.
However, now that we know the North Highway wasn't even passable until 1907 and we also now know that the North Highway never ran as far north or northwest as it was drawn on the Olmsted/Vaux plan those original objections are moot.
Also, since I was good enough to answer your direct questions I would ask for your thoughts on whether or not you believe CBM cleared the unwalkable land of Sebonac Neck prior to December 1906 or after? Thanks.
-
No Mike, I don't think that cabins and cottages are interchangeable when it came to the development of Southampton around this time. Look at the type of "cottages" these types of men were building. More importantly, why not just provide accurate information rather than putting your spin on it? You keep injecting in "cabins" when the articles say nothing about cabins. It seems you want to create a Butler Cabin scenario, but the record doesn't support that, so you change the record.
As for the location of the 120 acre site near the canal, we know what we know, and yet another wild goose chase on the topic isn't going to change that.
-
David,
I had no idea and thought the terms cottage and cabin were used interchangeably. Apparently not, as this article describes;
http://www.loughboroughinn.on.ca/blog/cottages/differences-between-cabins-and-cottages/
With that in mind, where do you think the writer of that article got the idea that cottages would be built? CBM's 1904 Agreement with the Founders doesn't mention cottages. If each of these news articles were all simply stealing from each other one or just copying from the 1904 Founders Agreement would think they'd maintain consistent language and functional integrity, no?
Instead, one calls them "building plots", the Brooklyn Daily Eagle refers to them as "summer cottages', another quotes directly from the 1904 Agreement saying "it is therefore possible to give each subscriber and acre and a half of ground in fee simple", this Evening Telegram article states, "some of the ground...may be sold or rented to the Founders for the erection of cottages" with the money going back into the club to help the overall financing. Do you think perhaps some had other sources than each other and CBM's 1904 Agreement?
Also, you may have missed it but do you think CBM cleared the unwalkable land of NGLA prior to his securing the land in December 1906 or after?
-
Mike, Southampton started as a "cottage" colony, but eventually became a "Summer Residence" community, with huge architectural houses with elaborate estate gardens and such (See CBM's summer residence, for example.) During the transition from one to another, the residences and mansions were sometimes still called "cottages" like the original summer cottages. The guys who were founding NGLA did not spend their summers in what we think of as cabins or what you might think of as a summer cottage. They spent their summers in mansions which were sometimes referred to as cottages.
With that in mind, where do you think the writer of that article got the idea that cottages would be built? CBM's 1904 Agreement with the Founders doesn't mention cottages. If each of these news articles were all simply stealing from each other one or just copying from the 1904 Founders Agreement would think they'd maintain consistent language and functional integrity, no?
No. Precisely because they were "stealing from each other." If you have been beat to the scoop and are cribbing from already published articles to try and catch up, you better put your own twist on the languageor you end up looking stupid. The first two articles - the Sun and Tribune - contain language that is undeniably from the 1904 Agreement. The later articles contain their own spin on the exact same information.
As often happens in the press, it is like a big game of telephone.
1. Mid-December 1906 CBM and HJW send out Notice of Payment Due to Subscribers along with the 1904 Subscription Agreement setting out a "suggestion" about splitting 90 acres among the founders.
2. December 15, 1906, the Tribune and Sun published articles based the new information from CBM and HJW along with the OLD information from the 1904 Agreement. Both articles paraphrase extensive portions of the 1904 agreement and mistakenly assume that the "suggestions" in that agreement apply directly to the NGLA property.
3. December 16th and 17th (and for months thereafter) additional newspapers (The Eagle, Evening Tribune, Witchita, etc.) publish articles repeating much of the same information already published, along with snippets of new information.
4. At each stage, the language about divvying up the lots is tweaked, but the essential information remains the same.
Note that the articles rely on extensive quotes from CBM and/or HJW addressing the specific NGLA purchase, but there are NO QUOTES about dividing the land up between the founders. This is because it is old information and wasn't being addressed by CBM or HJW at this time.
Do you think perhaps some had other sources than each other and CBM's 1904 Agreement?
No. I think they were all working off of each other and the same basic material and previous reports, and trying to put their own spin on the story. These articles rely extensively on direct quotes from CBM/HJW. Yet the bit about divvying up the land is never in the form of a direct quote. It is always just reporting facts without providing the source. Had CBM wanted to put out there that he would divvy up 90 acres to the founders it would be included in the extensive quotations.
You admit that the original stories were cribbing from the 1904 Agreement. All the others flow from this.
-
As for your last question as for what CBM had been doing on the land, I'd have to go back and look at the October and November articles to see what they had been doing, and I don't have time to do it now. I do recall though that there was some talk of already having sent plans and drawings to advisers abroad, so whether or not they had cleared the land they were apparently well on their way regarding the planning.
-
I can attest there are different definitions of cottages. On my mother's side an uncle had a cottage up on a lake in Michigan. 1500 SF, nothing special. On my fathers side, we visited their "cottage", which was a mansion on the shores of Lake Michigan, over 5000 SF, boat house, etc. (they had married into the Lazy Boy family)
That said, they can also be interchangeable.
Also, if CBM provided new info in those 1906 articles (and I seem to recall one old article mentioning CBM holding sway somewhere) how can we be sure he didn't verbally provide some updates to one intrepid reporter or the other? I don't think we can be sure that every stinking article was solely from the 1904 piece, since they could easily have sought out CBM and HJW on their own for more specific info to make their pieces different, as David suggests. And, some differences might have come from CBM and JHW each putting their spin on words in any interview, formal or otherwise.
We just can't be that certain, can we?
-
Jeff,
Anything is possible, I guess. But there is nothing in the record directly indicating that CBM "verbally provide[d] some updates" indicating that he wanted to divide up a large chunk of NGLA into housing lots for the founders. The articles are full of quotes from CBM and HJW on NGLA. Yet no quote about divvying up the property property for real estate. And CBM certainly did not write about any such plan in Scotland's Gift. Nor did he mention a plan divvying up substantial portions of the property for real estate lots in the 1912 letter.
So you can assume stuff about what CBM might have said if you want, but I think a more reasonable explanation is that the info in these articles came directly or indirectly from the 1904 Agreement and/or the articles that got it wrong in the first place. In fact even Mike admits that the language in the two original stories is directly cribbed from the 1904 Agreement.
Again, it is just like a game of 'Telephone.' You know how in Telephone the story gets garbled the more it gets passed on, so it ends up making no sense? Well, take a close look at the December 17, Evening Telegram article. It makes no sense.
- Do you really believe that CBM told a reporter that some of the land may be sold to the founders at a profit, to pay for the land acquisition? Really? This isn't even consistent with the other articles, and it makes no sense. Do you really believe that CBM told the Telegram that he was going to dupe some of the founders into paying for the same land twice? And the second time at a profit for the Club? Or is it more likely that the Telegram is just getting confused from what has been printed before in the other articles and in the 1904 Agreement?
- Or how about the bit about cottage rentals? CBM has already been quoted as saying that he was not going to get into the bed business. Do you really believe that two days later he told the Telegram he was going to go into the cottage rental business? Or is it more likely that, like with the telephone game, he is going into the cottage rental business?
Nothing is certain in historical research, but it is generally a better approach to go with what makes the most sense rather than assuming into existence conversations that may or may not have happened.
That said, you guys can believe whatever you like. If you guys really want to believe that CBM intended to divvy up a large portion of NGLA into residential lots and/or cottage rentals, then nothing in the historical record is going to dissuade you.
I'm still hoping that, as an architect you'll show me how this would work, though. Because based on CBM's descriptions of the course as of mid-December 1906, it sure doesn't seem like there was room for 90 acres of housing to me.
___________________________________
There is no reason to discuss cabins at all, because Mike just made that up. There is no mention of "cabins" in any of the source material.
-
Patrick,
Please tell me that you're not relying on the sketch below to prove that NGLA didn't own the land behind the 9th green.
Bryan,
Don't be a moron, of course I'm not relying on that schematic.
I'm relying on NGLA.
Who are you relying on ?
I asked you to let us know where that site "near" the Shinnecock Inn is ?
It doesn't even have a scale on it, nor is it in the context of a map of the area, nor does it say that it depicts the property boundaries. Why don't you get the deeds to prove your point that there was no land that NGLA owned behind the 9th green.
I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources
Who owns the land between the 9th green and the highway to the south today?
"Today" is irrelevant. But NGLA purchased the land behind the 9th green long after the clubhouse was built
How many acres are there?
You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.
No, I don't agree
Or are you saying that CBM was wrong and that he didn't own a site near the Shinnecock Inn?
I'll repeat that which I've stated numerous times before.
NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green prior to the construction of the clubhouse
Mike,
I think everyone knows that NGLA didn't own the Shinnecock Inn. I hope you're not catching the Mucci disease of stating the obvious. ;D
You're not really going to start again on the location of the Canal site are you? We beat that to death a couple of years ago.
The other sketch showing the Locker House behind the 9th green is also not to scale (even worse) but does suggest that he owned enough land behind the 9th green to house the Locker House. Did I not read somewhere that it was to become an adjunct to the club-house?
Bryan, you're wrong...... Again.
The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
-
Mike Cirba,
Must I correct you again ?
Not the LIE Mike, but RT 27.
In fact, you may recall, in one of your shotgun blasts, you claimed that the course was sited right on top of the North Highway (RT 27)
I pointed out to you that the location you chose had RT 27 running right down the middle of your golf course.
Has anyone posted the 1928 schematic that appears in "Scotland's Gift" ?
-
Patrick,
...................
I'm relying on NGLA.
............................
I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources
There is no way for us to assess the credibility of anonymous sources. Do they have the deeds? Did they show you the deeds? Can you produce them here?
So you agree that NGLA currently owns the area between the 9th green and the highway as seen in the aerial below. When exactly did they purchase it? Did they have an option on it before they purchased it?
You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.
No, I don't agree
So, you are stating that CBM was mistaken, lying or delusional when he wrote in Scotland's Gift that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee
So, your contention is that the current halfway house is the same "locker house" as depicted in the 1907 drawing? Does the current halfway house have lockers and showers?
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8684/17361564748_136397d1c9_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
...................
I'm relying on NGLA.
............................
I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources
There is no way for us to assess the credibility of anonymous sources. Do they have the deeds? Did they show you the deeds? Can you produce them here?
The source isn't anonymous.
I identified it for those who can read
So you agree that NGLA currently owns the area between the 9th green and the highway as seen in the aerial below.
No, I don't agree with the lines you've drawn
They currently own the land behind the 9th green, but I don't recall if it extends to Rt 27 and I don't think it extends to the right flank of # 9 as you've conveniently, if not disingenuously, depicted
When exactly did they purchase it?
Decades after the construction of the current clubhouse
Did they have an option on it before they purchased it?
No option dating back to 1906-8
You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.
No, I don't agree
So, you are stating that CBM was mistaken, lying or delusional when he wrote in Scotland's Gift that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
That's not what I'm stating and that's not what you stated in your original query.
You stated "he", when in fact the direct quote is "we"
The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee
So, your contention is that the current halfway house is the same "locker house" as depicted in the 1907 drawing?
Does the current halfway house have lockers and showers?
That's not my contention, that's your conclusion.
But, No, and did the one you're referencing have lockers and showers ?
With NGLA NOT owning the land behind the 9th green, why don't you tell us how the members were going to access the "locker house" behind the 9th green ? ? ?
If you don't own the land behind the 9th green, if you don't own the land adjacent to Rt 27, tell us how you would access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8684/17361564748_136397d1c9_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Do I read you right that you have contacted someone within NGLA to get the old property lines? I am sure we would like more info on the people you contacted.
As you know, memories of long time members have been proven inaccurate in many historical searches elsewhere, so I don't think its OB for Bryan to want to know if your source is on that level, or the club historian, or deeds, or whatever.
And, while I agree the property line he drew is an estimate, probably wrong in some details, and most likely wrong on the east side where there are no clues to real property lines, I don't think you need to call him disingenuous to take a stab at it. Again, most of your post is about what someone else said, and pretty light on facts concerning what you said. Being defensive is not giving a constructive answer to those who, for some reason that is getting harder to fathom, actually care a bit about this discussion.
David,
I understand your points, and again, we aren't far apart on what we think on this, but you always seem so sure it could have happened only one way, and I don't share your certainty on our interpretations.
As you said, every paper was going to get its own spin on the material, and the typical way to do that is to interview the main participants to get a unique quote. Its not hard to imagine they even perhaps talked to one of the actual founders or whatever who put down money. So many times, the historical quotes are both garbled, mixed, and sometime wrong, and it could be for several reasons.
As to fitting any specific land in, yes, there is only a bit of land by 17 and a few smaller pockets, certainly not suited for the mansion type cottages most members may have been envisioning. Like I say, we know the plan was dropped, and our only differences are in the certainty of when and how. Maybe the key is the CBM quote about wanting to be away from things when playing an ideal course. Did he decide that himself? Did an early founder tell him he wouldn't build a cottage there for whatever reason?
Again, never intended when he mentioned the leftover land, or intended but something just didn't work out for reasons we don't know. This stuff is interesting, but not interesting enough for me to argue with you about those details we will never know. Ditto on the original premise. I can see Patrick's interpretation, but I can also see Mike's. Obviously, CBM and others weren't considering some website like this 100 years later debating every word as if they were 100% precise in what they were trying to say.
-
Mike Cirba,
Must I correct you again ?
Not the LIE Mike, but RT 27.
In fact, you may recall, in one of your shotgun blasts, you claimed that the course was sited right on top of the North Highway (RT 27)
I pointed out to you that the location you chose had RT 27 running right down the middle of your golf course.
Has anyone posted the 1928 schematic that appears in "Scotland's Gift" ?
Pat,
The "North Highway", such that it was, wasn't passable by Auto in 1905-06 when CBM made his offer on the 120 Acres near the Shinnecock Canal. "Hardening" it for automobile travel is something that was accomplished by the Real Estate company around the same time they built the Shinnecock Inn.
What you pointed out back when was its proposed location on the Omsted/Vaux subdivision map that was drawn in 1907, but the highway was never built as far northwest towards the canal as that map projected until after WWII. Did you not see the 1904 and 1944 Topo maps of the region (including Sebonac Neck) that I posted yesterday that showed the road systems as they existed during that period?
Which 1928 schematic are you referring to? I have Scotland's Gift on my computer so if you can tell me which page you are referring to I can provide here. ***EDIT*** I see there's supposedly a drawing of NGLA in the back of the book but my electronic version doesn't include it, unfortunately.
Thanks.
-
David,
I would respectfully disagree with your assessment that all newspapers reports after December 15, 1906 were cribbed from the original.
First, the news accounts were not triggered from a mailing that went out to the Subscribers asking for payment. They were triggered by the fact that contracts were signed the previous afternoon for CBM to secure land at Sebonac Neck and it seems instead that a Press Release in the form of printed materials and even a News Conference that evening would have accompanied that event. One paper on Saturday the 15th said that Macdonald “announced (news and details of the agreement) last night”. Another quoted him directly and extensively. (see below)
Otherwise, if materials weren’t distributed at that event, what would these fellows be doing with a 1904 Agreement between CBM and the Founders? Where and when would they have received that private communication?
The contracts were signed Friday afternoon, Macdonald evidently announced it that Friday night, and two New York papers reported it the next day, while the Brooklyn Daily Eagle (with information not included in either of the first reports such as information about 200 Associate memberships) held out for the Sunday edition. All are included below for reference.
Would you agree that at least with these three accounts it was not a case of “Telephone” or “whisper down the lane” but instead having received materials directly from CBM who had just announced his land acquisition? Thanks.
New York Tribune, Saturday 12/15/1906
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5367491808_eae7d2455b_o.jpg)
New York Sun, Saturday, 12/15/1906
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Sunday 12/16/1906
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19061216_zpsyjw9vagz.jpg~original)
-
Patrick,
You're now reduced to this level of hair splitting to try to preserve your theory? :o
What do you think CBM meant when he wrote in Scotland's Gift (I added the parenthetical comment for context):
"We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
-
Read the articles you are posting. The Sun article specifically says that CBM sent the subscribers a notice. Never heard of a written announcement?
You've admitted that the two original articles were cribbing directly from the 1904 Agreement. Are you really going to argue that the later articles had a totally independent source for the same information, other than the 1904 Agreement or the previous articles?
If so, what is your evidence of this? Given the extensive CBM quotes, if CBM made this sort of statement, then why isn't there a quote where CBM said he was going to divvy up large portions of this particular property to distribute to the members?
-
Patrick,
...................
I'm relying on NGLA.
............................
I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources
There is no way for us to assess the credibility of anonymous sources. Do they have the deeds? Did they show you the deeds? Can you produce them here?
The source isn't anonymous.
I identified it for those who can read
So, now the source is an "it". Would that "it" be NGLA? Did the golf course whisper it to you in one of your seances? ;)
So you agree that NGLA currently owns the area between the 9th green and the highway as seen in the aerial below.
No, I don't agree with the lines you've drawn
They currently own the land behind the 9th green, but I don't recall if it extends to Rt 27 and I don't think it extends to the right flank of # 9 as you've conveniently, if not disingenuously, depicted
Thank you for agreeing that they do own some land behind the 9th green now. It wouldn't hurt for you to say yes, and then question the lines. Yes, the lines were a guess that I made to give you an idea of the area I was talking about. Now, if we had the deeds we could put an actual boundary around it.
Well, the path from beside the 9th green goes pretty much right up to RT 27, so I'd guess that the property extends to the highway. They seem to be dumping detritus on the property so I hope they own it.
When exactly did they purchase it?
Decades after the construction of the current clubhouse
That's not exactly exact. Could you narrow it down to the decade? Or, year? Who did they buy it from? It'd be helpful in finding the deeds.
Did they have an option on it before they purchased it?
No option dating back to 1906-8
You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.
No, I don't agree
So, you are stating that CBM was mistaken, lying or delusional when he wrote in Scotland's Gift that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
That's not what I'm stating and that's not what you stated in your original query.
You stated "he", when in fact the direct quote is "we"
Wow, a new low in hair splitting to avoid answering the question. ::)
The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee
So, your contention is that the current halfway house is the same "locker house" as depicted in the 1907 drawing?
Does the current halfway house have lockers and showers?
That's not my contention, that's your conclusion.
But, No, and did the one you're referencing have lockers and showers ?
I'm confused. Which "locker house" are you saying is next to the 10th tee?
The one I'm referring to is the one in the drawing at the bottom - the one that shows it on land you say NGLA didn't own behind the 9th green. And, yes, the articles (which apparently you didn't read) said it was to have lockers and showers.
With NGLA NOT owning the land behind the 9th green, why don't you tell us how the members were going to access the "locker house" behind the 9th green ? ? ?
If you don't own the land behind the 9th green, if you don't own the land adjacent to Rt 27, tell us how you would access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn
Let me throw it back to you - if their land didn't abut what is now Rt 27 how would they access a club-house down by Peconic Bay. Do you suppose CBM didn't think about access to either the originally intended club-house site near the Shinnecock Inn or the eventual site overlooking Peconic Bay, when he purchased the land? There was certainly limited access on dirt roads in all that area when he was buying. The developer was trying to build roads presumably to serve the Shinnecock Inn that they were building, but by all reports there wasn't a whole lot of access to Sebonac area at the time.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8684/17361564748_136397d1c9_o.jpg)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19070826CROP_zpsgdzh0hh9.jpg~original)
-
Bryan, I don't want to get involved with the back and forth between you and Patrick except to say that your interpretation of the "We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build . . . ." language makes sense to me. The only question in my mind is whether he was referring to the simple bath/locker house, or ultimate plans for something larger. That said, I do think the most sound reading is that if CBM did have future plans for a clubhouse, then he was probably thinking of doing something "near the old Shinnecock Inn."
-
Patrick,
You're now reduced to this level of hair splitting to try to preserve your theory? :o
I thought that I would just respond in kind ;D
What do you think CBM meant when he wrote in Scotland's Gift (I added the parenthetical comment for context):
"We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
I think he meant that he was going to build his clubhouse where it was always intended to be.
You should know that the current clubhouse sits well below the "high ground", which could be the 17th tee area, the 2nd fairway or where Sebonack's clubhouse now sits
-
Read the articles you are posting. The Sun article specifically says that CBM sent the subscribers a notice. Never heard of a written announcement?
You've admitted that the two original articles were cribbing directly from the 1904 Agreement. Are you really going to argue that the later articles had a totally independent source for the same information, other than the 1904 Agreement or the previous articles?
David,
Perhaps they had Federal Express back then to go along with Patrick's Super-highway through the dunes ;) but I can't imagine that Macdonald signed the papers Friday afternoon and then "announced" them in written form Friday evening in time for the Saturday morning papers.
Even if he sent out a telegram Press Release, it must have been pretty extensive with all of that information and details that were reported.
You never answered my primary question though; What would each of those individual newspapers be doing with a copy of a Private Correspondence "Agreement" Macdonald had sent to subscribers over two years prior? After all, even if you argue that the report on the 16th was cribbed from the two who independently reported the same thing on the 15th just as the ink was still drying, how would they each have a copy?
-
Mike, Try to get cute all you want, but the newspapers had CBM's written notice to the members to collect on the 1904 subscribers agreement, as the Sun article explicitly stated. And at least the original two papers had the accompanying 1904 Subscribers agreement.
Why did they have the Notice and Agreement? Either because a subscriber or CBM gave it to them. It makes no difference which.
You do understand, don't you, that when providing notice to collect on an Agreement that it makes sense to include that Agreement with the Notice?
-
As for the location of the Canal site, I agree with Bryan. It has been beaten to death in years past. All we know is that it was near the canal, and far away from Shinnecock Golf Club.
I have to admit a bit of disappointment that I seem to be the only one interested in the location of the first site Macdonald picked to site his Ideal Golf Course, which had been his dream for many years and which led him on a search for a site that went on for several years.
But alas…
Still, I think we know quite a bit more than has been suggested.
For instance, we know that for Macdonald, finding the right site was half the battle, literally. As far back as 1897 he wrote, ”A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best. Long Island is a natural links.”
Later in 1906 he wrote in Outing Magazine, “…there can be but one opinion as to the nature of the soil the course should be built upon, as well as the contour of the surface of the fairway green – running as this should in more or less gentle undulations as at St. Andrews, breaking in hillocks in a few places, more or less bold in certain parts as at Sandwich and North Berwick….There can be no really first class golf course without such material to work upon. Securing such a course is really more than half the battle, though …Having the material in hand to work upon, the completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience, gardening, and mathematics.”
We also know that CBM believed he could fit his Ideal Course on the 120 acres of the site because apparently that’s all he asked for. And as David mentioned, we know the site was near the Shinnecock Canal and that CBM didn’t want to get too close to Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
After he was rejected by the Real Estate Developer, when Macdonald eventually secured the 200 acres of Sebonac Neck he announced, “The soil is much better than on the Atlantic side of the dunes, and the undulations, instead of being high and long, as the Shinnecock Hills, are short and billowy, much easier to adapt to a variety of good lies for the ball.”
The Atlantic side was south of the railway intersecting that part of Long Island and the Shinnecock Hills I’d imagine was the more elevated, more undulating mid-section as seen on the topographical map below from 1904.
We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades. We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.
Given those considerations, and comparing the topography of Sebonac Neck CBM described as meeting his needs with the corresponding undulations of the land of the north shore near the canal, with is it really so difficult to imagine where those 120 acres may have been located?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
-
Mike, Try to get cute all you want, but the newspapers had CBM's written notice to the members to collect on the 1904 subscribers agreement, as the Sun article explicitly stated. And at least the original two papers had the accompanying 1904 Subscribers agreement.
Why did they have the Notice and Agreement? Either because a subscriber or CBM gave it to them. It makes no difference which.
You do understand, don't you, that when providing notice to collect on an Agreement that it makes sense to include that Agreement with the Notice?
David,
Do you really think the news was CBM sending notice to Subscribers to pay up or do you think the big news where all of that information got revealed was due to the fact that after almost a decade of dreaming and planning, Macdonald had finally secured his land for an Ideal Course and he announced it the day prior?
-
I don't know what you are talking about Mike and don't much care what you think the "big news" was, nor do I think it mattered one bit.
It is not that complicated.
1. The newspapers had a copy the Notice and Agreement sent by CBM to the founders, as well as additional information from CBM and/or HJW.
2. The newspapers mistakenly thought and reported that the hypothetical in the 1904 Agreement controlled what would happen on the ground at NGLA.
Is this really too hard for you to understand?
-
Patrick,
...................
I'm relying on NGLA.
............................
I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources
There is no way for us to assess the credibility of anonymous sources. Do they have the deeds? Did they show you the deeds? Can you produce them here?
The source isn't anonymous.
I identified it for those who can read
So, now the source is an "it". Would that "it" be NGLA?
Yes
Did the golf course whisper it to you in one of your seances? ;)[/size]
No, the seances are held at the Southampton Cemetery.
They are very informative and I never cease enjoying my communications with CBM and SR.
So you agree that NGLA currently owns the area between the 9th green and the highway as seen in the aerial below.
No, I don't agree with the lines you've drawn
They currently own the land behind the 9th green, but I don't recall if it extends to Rt 27 and I don't think it extends to the right flank of # 9 as you've conveniently, if not disingenuously, depicted
Thank you for agreeing that they do own some land behind the 9th green now.
But, that's not what you originally stated.
You make a statement that I disagree with, then, after my response, change the language/meaning of your original statement.
It wouldn't hurt for you to say yes, and then question the lines. Yes, the lines were a guess that I made to give you an idea of the area I was talking about. Now, if we had the deeds we could put an actual boundary around it.
It would hurt me because it would compromise my position vis a vis your twisted language and reasoning.
Well, the path from beside the 9th green goes pretty much right up to RT 27, so I'd guess that the property extends to the highway.
That's "your" GUESS and it may or may not be correct.
I suspect that NGLA's land now extends to Rt 27
They seem to be dumping detritus on the property so I hope they own it.
When exactly did they purchase it?
Decades after the construction of the current clubhouse
That's not exactly exact.
Could you narrow it down to the decade?
Or, year?
Who did they buy it from?
It'd be helpful in finding the deeds.
They acquired the land AFTER CBM had passed away.
I'll try to find out more just to make you happy
Did they have an option on it before they purchased it?
No option dating back to 1906-8
You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.
No, I don't agree
So, you are stating that CBM was mistaken, lying or delusional when he wrote in Scotland's Gift that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
That's not what I'm stating and that's not what you stated in your original query.
You stated "he", when in fact the direct quote is "we"
Wow, a new low in hair splitting to avoid answering the question. ::)
No, just being precise.
The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee
So, your contention is that the current halfway house is the same "locker house" as depicted in the 1907 drawing?
Does the current halfway house have lockers and showers?
That's not my contention, that's your conclusion.
But, No, and did the one you're referencing have lockers and showers ?
I'm confused. Which "locker house" are you saying is next to the 10th tee?
The one I'm referring to is the one in the drawing at the bottom - the one that shows it on land you say NGLA didn't own behind the 9th green. And, yes, the articles (which apparently you didn't read) said it was to have lockers and showers.
I'm afraid that I don't consider the "articles" as factual source material.
And, if you look at the schematic, please tell me how the golfers could access that locker house when NGLA didn't own the land between the 9th
green and RT 27 ?
With NGLA NOT owning the land behind the 9th green, why don't you tell us how the members were going to access the "locker house" behind the 9th green ? ? ?
If you don't own the land behind the 9th green, if you don't own the land adjacent to Rt 27, tell us how you would access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn
Let me throw it back to you
So, you can't answer the question.
Or rather, you admit that access was impossible, ergo, the schematic doesn't represent reality.
if their land didn't abut what is now Rt 27 how would they access a club-house down by Peconic Bay.
Via White's Lane.
The original entrance to the club, where the original gates still remain, was via the White's Lane extension.
That road ran right down the middle of the course between the front and back nine, starting near # 13 to the clubhouse.
Later, Sebonic Inlet Rd was employed and that's when the Cape hole was reconfigured.
I thought that you knew all of this.
Do you suppose CBM didn't think about access to either the originally intended club-house site near the Shinnecock Inn or the eventual site overlooking Peconic Bay, when he purchased the land?
I think CBM was well aware of how he would access the club in it's current location.
Without owning the land behind the 9th green, land owned by the Shinnecock Inn, he couldn't access anything behind the 9th green.
There was certainly limited access on dirt roads in all that area when he was buying. The developer was trying to build roads presumably to serve the Shinnecock Inn that they were building, but by all reports there wasn't a whole lot of access to Sebonac area at the time.
There was more than adequate access to the current clubhouse site, vis a vis, White's Lane and Sebonic Inlet Rd.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8684/17361564748_136397d1c9_o.jpg)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLA19070826CROP_zpsgdzh0hh9.jpg~original)
-
As for the location of the Canal site, I agree with Bryan. It has been beaten to death in years past. All we know is that it was near the canal, and far away from Shinnecock Golf Club.
I have to admit a bit of disappointment that I seem to be the only one interested in the location of the first site Macdonald picked to site his Ideal Golf Course, which had been his dream for many years and which led him on a search for a site that went on for several years.
But alas…
Still, I think we know quite a bit more than has been suggested.
For instance, we know that for Macdonald, finding the right site was half the battle, literally. As far back as 1897 he wrote, ”A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best. Long Island is a natural links.”
Later in 1906 he wrote in Outing Magazine, “…there can be but one opinion as to the nature of the soil the course should be built upon, as well as the contour of the surface of the fairway green – running as this should in more or less gentle undulations as at St. Andrews, breaking in hillocks in a few places, more or less bold in certain parts as at Sandwich and North Berwick….There can be no really first class golf course without such material to work upon. Securing such a course is really more than half the battle, though …Having the material in hand to work upon, the completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience, gardening, and mathematics.”
We also know that CBM believed he could fit his Ideal Course on the 120 acres of the site because apparently that’s all he asked for. And as David mentioned, we know the site was near the Shinnecock Canal and that CBM didn’t want to get too close to Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
After he was rejected by the Real Estate Developer, when Macdonald eventually secured the 200 acres of Sebonac Neck he announced, “The soil is much better than on the Atlantic side of the dunes, and the undulations, instead of being high and long, as the Shinnecock Hills, are short and billowy, much easier to adapt to a variety of good lies for the ball.”
The Atlantic side was south of the railway intersecting that part of Long Island and the Shinnecock Hills I’d imagine was the more elevated, more undulating mid-section as seen on the topographical map below from 1904.
We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades. We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.
That's NOT true.
And, you know that's not true.
Given those considerations, and comparing the topography of Sebonac Neck CBM described as meeting his needs with the corresponding undulations of the land of the north shore near the canal, with is it really so difficult to imagine where those 120 acres may have been located?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Remind me again, what's the date of this map ?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
-
Pat,
The date on that map is 1904. CBM made his offer for 120 acres in the 1905/06 timeframe.
-
Pat,
The date on that map is 1904.
-
Mike,
Thanks.
Bryan,
If you look at the map, in the upper right corner you can see the end of Sebonic Inlet Rd, which leads right to the current clubhouse entrance.
Hence, in 1904, before the course was routed, CBM was aware of the access to the site of the current clubhouse.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
Hope that helps
-
Mike,
Could you extend the map a little farther to the right (east)
Thanks
Pat,
The date on that map is 1904. Here's one from 1944 for comparison. You can see a few more houses (black dots) on the 1944 map.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7738/17340592509_a1ddc74cf7_b.jpg)
-
Pat,
I'll need to purchase another one, but for you, anything. ;D
-
Patrick,
Here you go!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7722/17384467099_716c23d5fa_b.jpg)
-
Thanks
-
Without wanting to get into the issue of if Macdonald originally intended his clubhouse where it is today (sorry, but I don't see much evidence of that and think CBM was more concerned with the landforms for the holes than anything else. I also believe that a consideration was the big hill for his Sahara and its proximity to the preceding green.), here's a larger map of the same thing from 1915 I believe, which shows the area of today's clubhouse, which seems to me like it might fit in the area behind/side to today's #9 green.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7768/16950985753_22227fdd78_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Take a closer look at the schematic you posted.
Look at the size of the 9th green.
Look at the size of the area behind the 9th green.
The distance from the back of the 9th green to the end of the property line is about the same distance as from the front of the 9th green to the back of the 9th green.
Do you think the NGLA clubhouse could fit in that space ?
If so, do you think approach shots into the 9th green would break every window facing the 9th green ?
And, how could you access that clubhouse if it was sited between the back of the 9th green and the end of the property line.
And where would the large parking lot be sited.
Keep grasping at straws, it becomes you ;D
-
Bryan, I don't want to get involved with the back and forth between you and Patrick except to say that your interpretation of the "We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build . . . ." language makes sense to me. The only question in my mind is whether he was referring to the simple bath/locker house, or ultimate plans for something larger. That said, I do think the most sound reading is that if CBM did have future plans for a clubhouse, then he was probably thinking of doing something "near the old Shinnecock Inn."
David,
Thanks for the thoughts - no need to get involved. The straightforward interpretation seems the most logical. Patrick is just being silly.
-
Patrick,
You're now reduced to this level of hair splitting to try to preserve your theory? :o
I thought that I would just respond in kind ;D
What do you think CBM meant when he wrote in Scotland's Gift (I added the parenthetical comment for context):
"We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"
I think he meant that he was going to build his clubhouse where it was always intended to be.
You should know that the current clubhouse sits well below the "high ground", which could be the 17th tee area, the 2nd fairway or where Sebonack's clubhouse now sits
Patrick,
I have no idea what you're talking about any more.
When next you seance with Charlie, be sure to tell him you're willing to edit Scotland's Gift for him so that it will finally be right according to Mucci. ;)
-
Patrick,
Re the very colorful post #175,
I'm afraid that I don't consider the "articles" as factual source material.
And, if you look at the schematic, please tell me how the golfers could access that locker house when NGLA didn't own the land between the 9th
green and RT 27 ?
The articles aren't factual. Some parts of Scotland's gift are erroneous in your view. You don't have the deeds. You do have the anonymous NGLA. Not much to go on. I guess all this is a waste of time.
if their land didn't abut what is now Rt 27 how would they access a club-house down by Peconic Bay.
Via White's Lane.
The original entrance to the club, where the original gates still remain, was via the White's Lane extension.
That road ran right down the middle of the course between the front and back nine, starting near # 13 to the clubhouse.
Later, Sebonic Inlet Rd was employed and that's when the Cape hole was reconfigured.
You realize that White's Lane isn't on the 1904 topo. Do you know when it (and the gate) was built?
Access to the intended first tee and locker house could have been through the Shinnecock Inn. It was only a 100 or 200 yards away and was being built primarily to serve the anticipated influx of wealthy golfers at NGLA. It was on a road, such as they were at that time. Or they could have accessed it because they owned the land behind the 9th green or they got an easement from the realty company who really wanted them there as an anchor for the development of the Shinnecock Hills.
Without owning the land behind the 9th green, land owned by the Shinnecock Inn, he couldn't access anything behind the 9th green.
Now, how do you know that the Shinnecock Inn owned the land behind the 9th green - your anonymous NGLA again? The Inn was a couple of hundred yards to the east of the 9th green, not behind it.
-
Patrick,
Re post #176 to Mike,
We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades. We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.
That's NOT true.
And, you know that's not true.
Perhaps you should read "Colonizing Southampton" by David Goddard. He has a lot of information about the development (or lack thereof) of the Shinnecock Hills. What Mike wrote is true.
-
Mike,
Thanks.
Bryan,
If you look at the map, in the upper right corner you can see the end of Sebonic Inlet Rd, which leads right to the current clubhouse entrance.
Hence, in 1904, before the course was routed, CBM was aware of the access to the site of the current clubhouse.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
Hope that helps
I have the map in full size. You could see it at the USGS store for free if you wanted. You could do a little research on your own, couldn't you?
The dashed "roads" are "unimproved" which in this context means two rut dirt roads incapable of supporting auto traffic. Do a little research to confirm that for yourself. As Mike has stated, the roads, with your beloved North Highway being a priority, weren't "hardened" (probably with gravel) until 1907-08. The dirt track that was to become Sebonac Inlet Road, wouldn't have been a priority for the developer or the county.
If you look closely at the map, you'll see a few little black squares. Those are the houses/buildings that were there when the survey was done. You will note that there were less than a handful north of the tracks across the Hills, and precious few more south of the tracks. In other words, there was no one out there and no reason to go there other than the developer trying to improve the land and sell it for cottages (big and small). It apparently cost a lot of money to build/harden the roads and it proceeded slowly. Development did not go well and the realty company went bankrupt in the early 20's.
I suspect that CBM wouldn't initially have had any money for roads if he didn't initially have any for the club-house. When did you say that White's Lane was built? All the more reason to intend to start his course and have his locker house and club-house near the Shinnecock Inn. The Inn was on an unimproved road that wasn't very far from the train station and an improved road. When the Inn burned down, it was a game changer. Perhaps by then he'd signed up enough Founders and associated members to fund his own club-house and road. By the way, ask the anonymous NGLA whether he had 60 paid up Founders when he purchased the property. How many paid up associate members did he have at that time? Given all that I imagine that access to the first tee and his intended club-house site near the Shinnecock Inn would have been a small issue indeed.
By the way, did you read Mike's articles - the ones where they said that the 60 mile trek out to NGLA from NYC could likely be made in 2 hours by steam and 3 hours or less by auto. By my math that means the auto was averaging 20 miles per hour. Perhaps they were anticipating traffic jams on the bustling highways in the lightly populated middle of nowhere. ;D I'd imagine that Charlie would have thought that most of his members would have used the faster steam train to the station next door to the new Shinnecock Inn and the intended first tee.
-
For those interested in these sort of things, Suffolk County has a pretty nice GIS Viewer with 10 foot contours at http://gis2.suffolkcountyny.gov/gisviewer/ (http://gis2.suffolkcountyny.gov/gisviewer/)
Here's a small sample.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5335/17401686779_ede5e1cc56_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Take a closer look at the schematic you posted.
Look at the size of the 9th green.
Look at the size of the area behind the 9th green.
The distance from the back of the 9th green to the end of the property line is about the same distance as from the front of the 9th green to the back of the 9th green.
Do you think the NGLA clubhouse could fit in that space ?
If so, do you think approach shots into the 9th green would break every window facing the 9th green ?
And, how could you access that clubhouse if it was sited between the back of the 9th green and the end of the property line.
And where would the large parking lot be sited.
Keep grasping at straws, it becomes you ;D
If you take the horseshoe shaped area around the 9th green, there is about 5 acres. Sound familiar?
Large parking lot? Looks like spots for 60 cars - that's small, a half acre at most.
If you overlay the schematic on the current Google aerial, and if the shaded area defined the boundaries of the NGLA property, then Shinnecock Hills GC's brand new 3rd tee, and possibly even the older 3rd tees are on NGLA property. I guess the two clubs get along.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7768/16950985753_22227fdd78_b.jpg)
-
I don't know what you are talking about Mike and don't much care what you think the "big news" was, nor do I think it mattered one bit.
It is not that complicated.
1. The newspapers had a copy the Notice and Agreement sent by CBM to the founders, as well as additional information from CBM and/or HJW.
2. The newspapers mistakenly thought and reported that the hypothetical in the 1904 Agreement controlled what would happen on the ground at NGLA.
Is this really too hard for you to understand?
David,
I think I actually understand things quite well and they are becoming clearer as a result of this discussion, thanks.
The idea that two independent newspapers would just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members laying around to report on less than 24 hours after CBM "announced" that contracts had been signed is beyond preposterous, wouldn't you agree? Instead, I think it's much more likely that the original Agreement was part of the larger Press release that accompanied that announcement, and it's clear that the terms of that Agreement had not changed by that time.
Beyond that, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle report the next day included information that was in neither of the previous day's stories, so that couldn't have been "cribbed" as you suggested either, correct?
That story also seemed to have more information than just repeating the terms of the Agreement however, and hints that CBM may already be reconsidering the cottage plan as it says, "While the matter is not settled, it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon."
That's somewhat different than what was included in the original agreement and seems to have been based on more insider information of the evolving thinking, no?
Also, one of the "next day" stories quotes Macdonald glowing extensively about the land he has secured, and he states, "There are sites available for houses and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay."
Now, I know you suggested that he was talking about building sites that the Real Estate Developer was having surveyed but none of the land of Sebonac Neck was included in the Olmsted/Vaux survey so there were in effect NO sites available for houses. Further, the Olmsted/Vaux plan wasn't produced until sometime in the spring of 1907 so there were truly NO sites anywhere in the Shinnecock Hills at that time in December 1906. When that plan was completed in the spring of 1907, only a single building lot down near today's 9th green was even close to the land that Macdonald had just secured and we already know access to the remote site was a major consideration and problematic risk to be overcome.
And why would Macdonald mix up his sites within a single sentence? Weren't the yachts going to approach the 200 acres he had just secured through the adjoining Peconic Bay?
Finally, if indeed all of these newspapers were incorrect in reporting the current project thinking, why wouldn't Macdonald, or Emmet, or Whigham, or Travis, or any of the powerful men involved with the club have asked for a retraction, or pen a correcting story?
I think that the answer to all of these questions is very obvious and indeed not at all complicated.
-
Bryan,
Nice series of posts. Thanks for the additional clarifying information and it's good to see this thread proceeding on a factual, not fantastical basis. ;)
We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades. We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.
That's NOT true.
And, you know that's not true.
Patrick,
As Bryan has pointed out, what I wrote above is factually correct.
Please take another look at the 1904 map and tell me what's missing on the northern side of the canal.
I'm sure you'll note that there is no bridge yet to provide access to the north side as there is today with the Sunrise Highway (Route 27). In fact, Route 27 wasn't even conceived of until the late 20s and it was years later before it finally opened.
So, it seems that when I was ridiculed a few years back for suggesting some possible sites CBM first considered that had today's Route 27 running through them it really was no obstacle to CBM at all because it simply didn't exist at that time.
I'm glad we finally have that matter cleared up, even if you'll never admit it. ;D
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
Incidentally, the Olmsted/Vaux Plan did propose a bridge be built across the northern portion of the Shinnecock Canal so your confusion as well as others in relying on that plan (which was never realized as the company went bankrupt in the early 20s) as reflective of reality in the early days of NGLA is somewhat understandable. Would you like for me to find out when that northern bridge was actually built? ;)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5435682645_1793ba3022_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
It is possible that CBM saw the then open site and proposed to buy it, but SHPB Realty was hesitant because they knew of future plans. I guess that much seems obvious, since they didn't sell.
For Pat or anyone who is using the rendering in post 193 (and before) to assess how much property was behind 9 green, please note that the outside box is a graphic bounding box and seems to have been cut off a bit left and right, probably due to fitting a particular sheet size, which is sometimes necessary. Thus, it is logical that that the property behind 9 green really extends further back than depicted on this graphic and includes more area.
Looking at Bryan's red line again, and also looking for property line clues, comparing to the graphic, etc. I believe the NGLA property line really does nearly touch 2 and 3 tees on SH. Hard to know if it goes through the N and the E on the site label, or just east, at the end of what appears to be a work area that would be more logically attached to the old SI site.
On the east, he may have it close. The property line on the graphic does angle away from 9 green similarly, and the Cold Spring Road would have logically been built parallel to the property line for lotting, etc. There is also a line of pine trees which might depict the actual line, but that is far from certain.
And, I do not know when NGLA got this property, but the graphic certainly allows for the possibility that it had it early, so it would be worth a check of deeds for those who care. I also wonder why CBM would not have given himself access to the same road as the SI, as it seems logical to have it for protection of your entry, if not to secure a wider border to make the course more of an enclave.
Sorry to add perhaps informed speculation to this thread......but it doesn't seem to have stopped anyone else!
-
Jeff,
I don't think there is any question that the Real Estate developers knew they wanted to sell building lots in the Shinnecock Canal area which is why they rejected Macdonald's offer to buy 120 acres near there. I also think the reason Macdonald only asked for 120 acres is because the developer told him he was going to sub-divide that area for housing and Macdonald had no wish to directly compete by providing his own building lots as per his original Founders Agreement but must have found the landforms compelling for golf and obviously thought 120 acres on that land was enough to build his Ideal Course at that time.
Indeed, in thinking about the type of gently rolling land CBM was looking for, as described in an earlier post, topographically and organically it seems to these layman's eyes that the land in and around that canal north of the railroad track and close to the water is very similar to the land he eventually settled for at Sebonac Neck which was never surveyed for housing and was considered somewhat worthless at the time.
-
Mike,
Actually, in reading the topo maps, I think he has a bit better contour at the final site than the one near the canal, but not as much water frontage. I also notice that Sebonak is a site with a hill in the middle, which is always a tough routing chore, and must have been interesting for Tom and Jack.
-
Jeff,
Only a moron would argue that Macdonald's second choice for a site was superior to his first choice. ;D
-
Mike,
If you consider longer true water frontage inferior, that is.....
-
Patrick,
Re post #176 to Mike,
We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades. We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.
That's NOT true.
And, you know that's not true.
Perhaps you should read "Colonizing Southampton" by David Goddard. He has a lot of information about the development (or lack thereof) of the Shinnecock Hills. What Mike wrote is true.
No, it's not.
Perhaps you can explain how guests, traveling by car, accessed the Shinnecock Inn, if there were no roads servicing it.
The North Highway in particular I believe..
Do you not recall the advertisement from the Shinnecock Inn that David Moriarty or someone else posted, wherein the advertisement showed motor cars and stated that the completed highway led to the front door.
-
Bryan,
Nice series of posts. Thanks for the additional clarifying information and it's good to see this thread proceeding on a factual, not fantastical basis. ;)
We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades. We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.
That's NOT true.
And, you know that's not true.
Patrick,
As Bryan has pointed out, what I wrote above is factually correct.
NO, it's NOT.
Please take another look at the 1904 map and tell me what's missing on the northern side of the canal.
I'm sure you'll note that there is no bridge yet to provide access to the north side as there is today with the Sunrise Highway (Route 27).
In fact, Route 27 wasn't even conceived of until the late 20s and it was years later before it finally opened.
Mike, the bridge in 1904 was south of the RR tracks, but the road shifted north to the Old North Hwy as soon as you crossed the bridge.
How do you think guests in motor cars drove to the Shinnecock Inn ?
So, it seems that when I was ridiculed a few years back for suggesting some possible sites CBM first considered that had today's Route 27 running through them it really was no obstacle to CBM at all because it simply didn't exist at that time.
Not today's Rt 27, but, the Old North Highway
I'm glad we finally have that matter cleared up, even if you'll never admit it. ;D
I'd prefer to not admit that you're wrong
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8792/17521565201_80c5646be0_b.jpg)
Incidentally, the Olmsted/Vaux Plan did propose a bridge be built across the northern portion of the Shinnecock Canal so your confusion as well as others in relying on that plan (which was never realized as the company went bankrupt in the early 20s) as reflective of reality in the early days of NGLA is somewhat understandable. Would you like for me to find out when that northern bridge was actually built? ;)
The date is irrelevant.
As soon as motorists crossed the canal they could take one of several routes, the south route, the north route or the mid-route.
The location of the bridge had nothing to do with the highway patterns east of the canal.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5435682645_1793ba3022_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Move it a little further east.
Thanks
Patrick,
Here you go!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7722/17384467099_716c23d5fa_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
The only problem with your topo is that the road labeled "White's Lane" isn't "White's Lane"
It's the private driveway leading to the NGLA clubhouse.
You should be more careful with what you rely on for your information. ;D
For those interested in these sort of things, Suffolk County has a pretty nice GIS Viewer with 10 foot contours at http://gis2.suffolkcountyny.gov/gisviewer/ (http://gis2.suffolkcountyny.gov/gisviewer/)
Here's a small sample.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5335/17401686779_ede5e1cc56_o.jpg)
-
"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."
George Orwell
-
Patrick,
Again you post with no real information (although I agree White's Lane is for some reason mislabeled) but just refuting other people without really giving any facts as to why.......other than using yourself as a source. Its hard to take you seriously if you take this conversation seriously. I am borderline on both....... ;)
-
Patrick,
Timing is everything here.
CBM made his offer for 120 acres near the Shinneocock Canal in the late 1905, early 1906 timeframe.
The Shinnecock Inn was built in 1907. Please re-read what the accounts said about the roads and accessibility to the area in April of 1908 a few years post Macdonald's original offer after the Inn burned.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5444/17582481506_ff0de8e094_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8811/17422627249_0a94037109_b.jpg)
The section of the North Highway that was completed in 1907 at a cost of $11,000 and gifted to the city of Southampton as a goodwill gesture would have provided the route to the Inn, but it was only the branch coming off the completed (improved=passable by auto) main road seen on the map below. None of this had anything to do with the land over by the canal that CBM was considering in 1905-06 as there were no roads passable by automobile in that section at that time.
If you visually cross the bridge on the main road across the Shinnecock Canal and continue on that road eastward, careful not to detour off on any of those sandy ruts shown on the dotted lines where you'll likely be digging out or left for dead, I'm pretty sure you can see what was done and when. ;) I'm sure someone more artistic than me with photoshop can map it out for you otherwise. Did AAA exist back then? ;D
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7722/17384467099_716c23d5fa_b.jpg)
-
I think it's safe to say that CBM didn't design and construct his golf course without giving any thought to siting his clubhouse.
I think it's safe to say that the lack of funds delayed constructing his clubhouse.
I think it's safe to say that CBM wouldn't site and construct a clubhouse that couldn't be accessed by car/road.
I think it's safe to say that the 205 acres CBM purchased, was land locked at the south end.
I think it's safe to say that CBM recognized the convenience of using the recently built Shinnecock Inn as a temporary clubhouse.
I think it's safe to say that CBM wasn't an arsonist. ;D
Thus, the burning of the Shinnecock Inn was an unexpected surprise to CBM.
CBM states that it was the burning down of the Shinnecock Inn that was the impetus for him to build his clubhouse.
Regarding the current clubhouse site, he states: "... for today we have an unexcelled site"
So, did the site suddenly become "unexcelled" only after the Shinnecock Inn burned to the ground.
Or, was the site always "unexcelled" ?
Did CBM only become aware of the "unexcelled" site after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, or was he aware of that site
as he routed and designed holes # 1 and 18 ?
CBM further states: "There are no more beautiful golfing vistas in the WORLD than those from the National Golf Club..."
So, did he have a moment of clarity, only after the fire trucks pulled up to the Shinnecock Inn ?
Did he have to wait until the smoke cleared his eyes before he had his epiphany ?
Like any intelligent person, especially one so studied, did he recognize the majesty of the current site from the get go.
Or, was he weighing his options ?
Let's see, shall I choose.......
1 A mundane site in the shadows of the Shinnecock Clubhouse
2 A majestic site unrivaled in golf, sitting high upon a bluff overlooking Sebonic Bay
My reading of his words is that when the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he gave some fleeting thought to constructing another temporary clubhouse, for convenience sake, as he still had the parking lot of the SI close by, but, instead, decided on siting his clubhouse where it was always intended.
Another quote from CBM is found on page 191 of "Scotland's Gift" where he states that "The Sahara of the Royal St George's at Sandwich I found in OUR SECOND HOLE.
Now, if you've played NGLA, you realize that the tee for the second hole is but a wedge from the current clubhouse.
This also leads me to believe that CBM ALWAYS intended the clubhouse to be sited exactly where it is.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
-
Patrick,
Again you post with no real information (although I agree White's Lane is for some reason mislabeled) but just refuting other people without really giving any facts as to why.......other than using yourself as a source. Its hard to take you seriously if you take this conversation seriously. I am borderline on both....... ;)
Jeff,
"for some reason" ? ? ?
That's it ? "For some reason ?
Why didn't you take Bryan to task for posting a gross misrepresentation.
After all, you're the one clamoring for facts aren't you ?
I really don't care if you take me seriously, or not.
I've provided facts, you just want to dismiss them due to your inherent bias.
And, that's OK, I understand.
-
Patrick,
Timing is everything here.
CBM made his offer for 120 acres near the Shinneocock Canal in the late 1905, early 1906 timeframe.
The Shinnecock Inn was built in 1907. Please re-read what the accounts said about the roads and accessibility to the area in April of 1908 a few years post Macdonald's original offer after the Inn burned.
The section of the North Highway that was completed in 1907 at a cost of $11,000 and gifted to the city of Southampton as a goodwill gesture would have provided the route to the Inn, but it was only the branch coming off the completed (improved=passable by auto) main road seen on the map below. None of this had anything to do with the land over by the canal that CBM was considering in 1905-06 as there were no roads passable by automobile in that section at that time.
Mike,
The 1904 map shows roads galore.
My postings have nothing to do with your discussion/debate with David Moriarty and the canal.
Please post the advertisement for the Shinnecock Inn.
And please shift the 1904 map further East.
Thanks
-
"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."
George Orwell
Or a country club's minutes, depending on who you are and what you may be trying to prove or disprove......
Patrick,
I still see a lot of your opinions about what it is "safe to say" presented as facts.......also, I think you show the greatest bias by insulting others, assuming a lot, and twisting facts to fit. I will agree he wasn't an arsonist, but wonder if his famous "hot head" may have sparked a flame! ;)
All that said, I can understand your hypothesis, and how you read that from the often odd wording of our forefathers. There are always inconsistencies, including "For Today, we have a unexcelled site... Your first thought was that he had just discovered it, mine was why not say "We have always had an unexcelled site.....which we are now using." We just can't know how seriously he considered it early. Maybe it seemed out of reach in those early days, maybe it was never considered.
It could very well be that his CH with great views was considered for sometime in the far distant future, with the idea that it would be a while until it was financially practical, and the routing was conceived partially to accommodate both. The fire forced their hand much earlier than they would have liked. I have seen some of my own projects planned (or evolved) the same way because finances are always tight.
So, in that sense, you are entitled to stick to your story, even if not really proven in the record. I simply believe you use the wrong tactics to justify your visions.
(Separate topic, but I wonder if for a moment at least, ANGC considered what the routing might be if the old plantation house hadn't been used as the CH)
-
"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."
George Orwell
Or a country club's minutes, depending on who you are and what you may be trying to prove or disprove......
Patrick,
I still see a lot of your opinions about what it is "safe to say" presented as facts.......
Jeff,
Than it should be very easy for you to refute those opinions.
Absent any refutation, I'll take it that you accept them as factual.
-
Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics. Gotta ask why?
-
Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics. Gotta ask why?
Jeff
YOU stated that none of my opinions contained facts.
I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.
How is that argumentative ?
You're the one who initiated the challenge, not me.
I'm just responding to your whining which has gone on for years.
Would you cite where my opinions are absent any facts ?
If not, please, just stop whining.
-
Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics. Gotta ask why?
Jeff
YOU stated that none of my opinions contained facts.
I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.
How is that argumentative ?
You're the one who initiated the challenge, not me.
I'm just responding to your whining which has gone on for years.
Would you cite where my opinions are absent any facts ?
If not, please, just stop whining.
Pat,
This video would be good for you to watch. ;D ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnFnWWAnlkw
-
To be honest Pat, about all you would need to do is provide more flesh out of what you claim in not refutable info from NGLA as to when and how much land NGLA owned behind 9 green.
And, perhaps be sure you know what you are talking about on the road situation in 1904, because that seems as if you expect us to accept your logic as to which roads were in place and which roads weren't, while you won't accept Mikes similar logic (but different conclusions)
I don't believe I have whined a bit, but you can't help yourself from insulting anyone who even mildly questions you. At least, you haven't in the dozen years we have both been here.
-
Pat,
Here's the June 2, 1907 advertisement original produced by Joe Bausch on a previous related thread. You'll note that the date is in the same year that the North Highway was being made passable for automobile traffic, at least the area near the Shinnecock Inn. The previous articles provide some idea of traffic volume, which was about as frequent as me getting up and down. ;)
As far as moving the map "east", please tell me what you're trying to see and I'll figure out the best way to do that. Thanks.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I still see a lot of your opinions about what it is "safe to say" presented as facts.......
Then tell us which opinions are absent any facts.
also, I think you show the greatest bias by insulting others, assuming a lot, and twisting facts to fit.
Then it should be easy for you to cite the allegations you've made in the above sentence.
And, it should be easy for you to cite where I've twisted the facts.
Please, have at it.
I will agree he wasn't an arsonist, but wonder if his famous "hot head" may have sparked a flame! ;)
His "famous hot head" got him thrown out of Shinnecock.
Do you really believe, with his ego, his hot head and his prior incident at Shinnecock that he'd site his clubhouse in the shadow of Shinnecock's clubhouse, with the Shinnecock members looking down at his creation ?
Be honest, do you really think CBM would choose the site "near" the SI, a mundane site at best, or a world class site ?
All that said, I can understand your hypothesis, and how you read that from the often odd wording of our forefathers.
Thanks
There are always inconsistencies, including "For Today, we have a unexcelled site...
Your first thought was that he had just discovered it, mine was why not say "We have always had an unexcelled site.....which we are now using."
That wasn't my first thought.
How on earth could you come to that conclusion.
We just can't know how seriously he considered it early.
Jeff, you can't be serious.
This was a man who was intelligent, educated and highly observant.
Do you think that he couldn't differentiate between the two sites ?
And, while you're at it, tell us how he could possibly access the two sites ?
Maybe it seemed out of reach in those early days, maybe it was never considered.
"Out of reach" ?
In 1904 Sebonac Inlet Rd led right to the front entrance of NGLA
How is that "out of reach"
Now who's grasping at straws and offering opinions absent any facts ?
You're guilty of what you've been accusing me of doing.
What a joke
It could very well be that his CH with great views was considered for sometime in the far distant future, with the idea that it would be a while until it was financially practical, and the routing was conceived partially to accommodate both.
We know that the clubhouse was intended for the future due to lack of funds.
But, tell us, since NGLA didn't own the land between the golf course and RT 27 (North Highway) how were the members going to access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn, once the Shinnecock Inn burned down ?
The fire forced their hand much earlier than they would have liked.
Agreed, I think that was one of the opinions I presented which was based upon the facts, an opinion that you criticized me for
I have seen some of my own projects planned (or evolved) the same way because finances are always tight.
So, in that sense, you are entitled to stick to your story, even if not really proven in the record.
You may not be aware of it, but, there's something called: "circumstantial evidence"
Evidence that would lead a prudent man to a prudent conclusion.
When you add up the facts and circumstances, where else would he site his clubhouse ?
I simply believe you use the wrong tactics to justify your visions.
Oh, so now we're getting back to a personality clash......... again.
What tactics ?
Your sentence above reinforces my belief that we have and continue to have a clash of personalities.
You don't like me and I really don't care if you don't like me.
If my facts are in error, point them out, just like I pointed out that Bryan's reliance on the topo identifying "White's Lane" was factually wrong.
Why didn't you take Bryan to task for presenting false evidence.
Why didn't you criticize him for failing to do his due diligence, for his failure to present the facts ?
You're guilty of having an inherent bias, that's why.
And, stop whining.
(Separate topic, but I wonder if for a moment at least, ANGC considered what the routing might be if the old plantation house hadn't been used as the CH)
-
Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics. Gotta ask why?
Jeff
YOU stated that none of my opinions contained facts.
I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.
How is that argumentative ?
You're the one who initiated the challenge, not me.
I'm just responding to your whining which has gone on for years.
Would you cite where my opinions are absent any facts ?
If not, please, just stop whining.
Pat,
This video would be good for you to watch. ;D ;D
JC,
I'm not interested in watching UTube videos, but, if you have any information that will refute what I've stated, please post it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnFnWWAnlkw
-
To be honest Pat, about all you would need to do is provide more flesh out of what you claim in not refutable info from NGLA as to when and how much land NGLA owned behind 9 green.
Jeff,
I'm not bound by your schedule.
In due time.
And, perhaps be sure you know what you are talking about on the road situation in 1904, because that seems as if you expect us to accept your logic as to which roads were in place and which roads weren't, while you won't accept Mikes similar logic (but different conclusions)
Would you cite where Mike and I have a difference of opinion on the roads.
I think we both accept the 1904 map as reasonably accurate.
I don't believe I have whined a bit,
That's part of the problem, whiners never admit that they're whiners.
It's like slow golfers, they never admit that they're slow
but you can't help yourself from insulting anyone who even mildly questions you.
That's not true, it's just typical of your whining nature.
Questions don't bother me in the least, I love addressing them.
It's the tone of the question and/or criticism that fuels my response.
When you criticize/attack me, especially for off topic issues, non-relevant issues, do you really expect me to ignore you ?
I get such delight in responding to whiners, in a manner that will produce more whining, that like Clint, it makes my day.
At least, you haven't in the dozen years we have both been here.
Well, just think of it as the "dozen year war", kinda like the 100 year war, only, 88 short.
-
Mike,
Thanks.
But, there was another advertisement, one showing the building, maybe Joe has that one too.
I think the other advertisement also mentioned the highways and garaging..
In addition, did you read the ad Joe provided, especially the part in the second paragraph below the BOLD words "Shinnecock Hills",
Where it says: "A complete system of good roads for driving, riding and motoring"
Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn
You don't suppose that those cars were airlifted in, do you ? ;D
Pat,
Here's the June 2, 1907 advertisement original produced by Joe Bausch on a previous related thread. You'll note that the date is in the same year that the North Highway was being made passable for automobile traffic, at least the area near the Shinnecock Inn. The previous articles provide some idea of traffic volume, which was about as frequent as me getting up and down. ;)
As far as moving the map "east", please tell me what you're trying to see and I'll figure out the best way to do that. Thanks.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
-
Jeff,
Let me help clarify the issue/s for you.
Instead of dealing with the topics/issues being discussed, you chime in with complaints about me and my presentation/s.
Then, when I respond in kind, you cry "foul"
You're like the child who kills her parents and then begs for mercy from the court because she's an orphan.
Stick to the issue/s and leave the bias and angst for someone else
-
Pat,
I have dealt with the issues, you have not. So many of your posts are aimed at discussion of your perceived failings of other posters, not facts on YOUR OWN THREAD. Very infantile of you. Getting into another petty fight is pointless, something I apparently need to relearn from kindergarten.
Not only do you argue for the sake of arguing by insulting and accusing others of doing just what you are really doing, you is you demand certain things from others, but not yourself. For instance.
Jeff,
I'm not bound by your schedule.
In due time.
And yet, my only two choices are to refute you now (more completely, with more facts, whatever) or accept you are right. Those certainly are NOT my only two choices. You present a false dichotomy intended only to win your argument at any possible cost of your dignity.
I will wait until you decide to present on "your schedule" any more documents of interest. No point in responding any more to your endless windbaggery. Sorry I let you drag me down in the Southhampton mud, apparently at a place where the road is STILL not improved!
-
Pat,
I have dealt with the issues, you have not.
No you haven't.
Did you call out Bryan Izatt for posting incorrect exhibits ?
No, you didn't.
WHY NOT ?
You are interested in the facts aren't you ?
You claimed to be when you directed your posts to me.
Or, are you a whining hypocrit ?
So many of your posts are aimed at discussion of your perceived failings of other posters, not facts on YOUR OWN THREAD.
Please identify them
Very infantile of you. Getting into another petty fight is pointless, something I apparently need to relearn from kindergarten.
Jeff, Perhaps you've forgotten, but, you started this little conflict with another one of your hissy fits.
Not only do you argue for the sake of arguing by insulting and accusing others of doing just what you are really doing, you is you demand certain things from others, but not yourself.
Have an interpreter decipher what you're trying to say in the convoluted sentence above.
For instance.
Jeff,
I'm not bound by your schedule.
In due time.
Both statements are true and accurate.
I'm not bound by your schedule and I'll produce the exact date in due time.
I know that the land was purchased after CBM's death, but, don't have the exact date at my disposal at this time.
Ergo, I'lll produce it in due time.
Sorry if that offends you, but, when you're a whiner, I guess not getting instant gratification fuels the whining.
And yet, my only two choices are to refute you now (more completely, with more facts, whatever) or accept you are right.
Those aren't your "only two choices".
But, I'll leave it up to your whining brain to figure out the others.
Those certainly are NOT my only two choices.
You present a false dichotomy intended only to win your argument at any possible cost of your dignity.
I made a statement of fact.
NGLA did not own the land behind the 9th green when the SI burned down.
They acquired the land long afterwards.
As to the exact date, I'll get that, in due time.
Sorry if that triggers more whining on your part.
I will wait until you decide to present on "your schedule" any more documents of interest.
It's not a matter of when I "decide" to post the date, it's a matter of the time it will take me to get the exact date.
I'm sorry if you're inconvenienced by having to wait, but, obtaining the exact date isn't amongst my first fifty (50) priorities in life.
You're just a whiner if you don't get your way.
No point in responding any more to your endless windbaggery.
Sorry I let you drag me down in the Southhampton mud, apparently at a place where the road is STILL not improved!
In addition to being a whiner, you're a liar.
It was YOU who started this.
But, like all whiners, you start something, get your nose bloodied, and cry foul.
Stop whining and grow up.
-
Patrick,
As a friend, I know you have bemoaned the loss of key contributors to this website and I share your sentiment.
You've just filibustered such that you've posted fifteen separate times in lengthy, scattershot fashion in approximately 2.5 hours. As someone who has been known to go on tangents here in the past I'm trying my best in returning to put 90% more thought and research and 90% less typing into my posts.
I sense you didn't like the direction of the thread or some of the factual information that was presented and have now pretty much rendered further conversation pointless.
I'd ask respectfully that you consider what such actions might do to discourage others from participation here.
Thanks.
-
Mike,
Sorry I set him off. Should have known and those kind of discussions with him are never worth it.
I will wait for whatever Pat has on the property behind 9 green at NGLA, and understand he doesn't have it at his immediate disposal. I admit, that for a few different reasons, I probably suspect he doesn't really have it, but also admit I might be wrong. It seems he should, but then, many of us, myself included, post from memory and don't always have the information at hand.
I appreciate guys like you, Bryan, David, etc. who can post various historical articles and maps. They may be inconsequential in the whole scheme of things, but a few of us can't help but be interested in the history of golf.
The petty arguments, eh, not so much.
-
Mike,
I'm not sure that I understand your last post.
Jeff Brauer attempted to deliberately divert my premise by whining about my style, and, you're right, it was a waste of time.
Jeff does this periodically.
My objectives are focused on the Shinnecock Inn, not the canal.
That's for you and David to debate.
The realty company didn't build the Shinnecock Inn without having ample access to the Shinnecock Inn and those advertisements prove it.
But, if I tangentially seize an element from your position, that other than the Old North Highway, no roads existed to the North, and the 1904 map would seem to support that, then how was CBM going to access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn if NGLA didn't own the land behind/flanking/underneath the Shinnecock Inn, abutting the Old North Highway ?
If NGLA owned the land, then access wouldn't be a problem, would it.
But, if NGLA didn't own the land, what then ?
Would CBM site a clubhouse in a location that couldn't be accessed ?
You have to understand "motive".
Bryan, Jeff and others don't want me to be right.
But, if NGLA didn't own the land until after CBM died, can there be any other conclusion, when taking in all the other factors, that CBM always intended his clubhouse to be sited where it is currently located ?
-
Mike,
Sorry I set him off. Should have known and those kind of discussions with him are never worth it.
I will wait for whatever Pat has on the property behind 9 green at NGLA, and understand he doesn't have it at his immediate disposal. I admit, that for a few different reasons, I probably suspect he doesn't really have it, but also admit I might be wrong. It seems he should, but then, many of us, myself included, post from memory and don't always have the information at hand.
Jeff,
Unlike yours, my memory of the conversation with the interested parties at NGLA is crystal clear.
I was informed that the club didn't purchase the land until long after the current clubhouse was built.
Would you have me call the good folks at NGLA, "liars"
I don't know why I make repeated requests that you stop whining.
I should have learned by now that whining is an integral part of your nature, woven into your very fabric.
I appreciate guys like you, Bryan, David, etc. who can post various historical articles and maps.
They may be inconsequential in the whole scheme of things, but a few of us can't help but be interested in the history of golf.
History ?
History as evidenced by NGLA's purchase of the land behind the 9th green subsequent to the construction of the current clubhouse ?
That's relevant history isn't it Jeff ?
The petty arguments, eh, not so much.
-
Mike,
Help me decide which pithy phrase best sums up Patrick's pathetic demeanor.....
From literature "Though doth protest too much."
Or from the playground....."He who smelt it dealt it."
?
-
Mike, A productive discussion requires that we deal with the source material reasonably and honestly, and follow its lead even where it conflicts with our preconceived notions. Your post number 194 is a great example of why some doubt your willingness and/or ability to carry on a productive discussion about this material.
The idea that two independent newspapers would just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members laying around to report on less than 24 hours after CBM "announced" that contracts had been signed is beyond preposterous, wouldn't you agree?
Why do you keep trotting out this preposterous red herring? You say this over and over again with your usual rhetorical flourish, yet no one - not me, not anyone - ever suggested that "the newspapers just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members." I've explained at least a half dozen times why the 1904 Subscription Agreement would have been recirculated at this time: CBM was providing Notice that the money was due pursuant to the 1904 Subscription Agreement! This is directly out of the December 15, 1906 Sun article. Read the material you post!
So just stop. Stop with this "fantastical" red herring about whether or not they'd have something from two years before. You've admitted they had it, and they most likely had it because CBM had just re-sent it, along with the notice. How many times do we have to cover this? As for how exactly the press came to receive it, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely that either the Founders provided it to the press, or that CBM/HJW provided the press with the material he had provided to the founders. It makes no difference either way.
Beyond that, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle report the next day included information that was in neither of the previous day's stories, so that couldn't have been "cribbed" as you suggested either, correct?
Incorrect. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle tweaked the wording, but it contained the same basic information as the other articles and the 1904 Agreement. Even the bit about the matter not being settled has its roots in the 1904 Agreement, which noted that this was just a suggestion and the details could be worked out later. More importantly, while the Eagle's version is consistent with the 1904 Agreement, the supposed extra information in this portion of the Eagle article contradicts CBM's own words from 1906. There was to be no "bordering land not required for the links." The borders had not yet been determined, but according to CBM the borders were to be closely tailored to the golf course itself!
Also, one of the "next day" stories quotes Macdonald glowing extensively about the land he has secured, and he states, "There aresites available for houses and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay."
This wasn't a "next day" story, but no matter. You are taking it out of context no matter what day it was printed.
Now, I know you suggested that he was talking about building sites that the Real Estate Developer was having surveyed but none of the land of Sebonac Neck was included in the Olmsted/Vaux survey so there were in effect NO sites available for houses. Further, the Olmsted/Vaux plan wasn't produced until sometime in the spring of 1907 so there were truly NO sites anywhere in the Shinnecock Hills at that time in December 1906. When that plan was completed in the spring of 1907, only a single building lot down near today's 9th green was even close to the land that Macdonald had just secured and we already know access to the remote site was a major consideration and problematic risk to be overcome.
So, your position is that not only was CBM planning a huge block of "home sites" on NGLA, but that other than these "there were truly NO sites anywhere in Shinnecock Hills." This is so disingenuous it almost leaves me wordless. . . . . Not quite though. (Before I begin explaining the problems with this position, know that your position here is another good example of why many people don't take you seriously as a researcher and analyst. There is just no way you can reasonably believe what you are trying to sell.)
Here is an overlay of the portion of the Olmstead plan closest to the Shinnecock Inn and NGLA.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-Overlay-1907crop.jpg?t=1299873957)
Keep in mind at this point in time, the course was to start and finish at the Shinnecock Inn, with the Inn acting as a quasi-clubhouse. Note that the development is adjacent to the Shinnecock Inn which was actually part of the development, and adjacent to NGLA. To put it simply:
No reasonable person could argue that "there were truly NO sites anywhere in Shinnecock Hills" and convenient to NGLA.
But you aren't being reasonable, so you try to fudge it. You pretend that the development didn't exist until a few months after CBM's Dec. 1906 quotes. FALSE. While the advertisement containing the 1907 map for the development wasn't published in the papers until a few months after the December articles, the development company had been developing the property for at least the past year. YOU KNOW THIS. In fact, look at the very advertisement you are using to date the development! It indicates that they had been extensively improving the property over the past year, and had built or were in the process of building several underpasses, a bridge, and two railroad stations, roads, and a hotel.
The advertisement also prominently featured NGLA, because NGLA was adjacent to the development and apparently a big selling point.
The advertisement also noted that the golf course at NGLA would be over 200 acres. No mention of Cirba's fictional 90 acre real estate development at NGLA. As if the development would have sold CBM land to become its direct competitor!
The advertisement also specifically emphasized that four roads had been built to access (among other things) NGLA and Shinnecock GC from any building lot in the development, and more were being added.
Of course CBM would have been aware of all of this. He had been dealing with this company for some time (remember the 120AC offer?) and mentioned the creation of the Inn in his notice.
So tell me again, Mike, about how CBM couldn't possibly have been referring to lots in this massive development which included NGLA's de facto clubhouse? Better yet, stop with this sort of disingenuous nonsense.
And why would Macdonald mix up his sites within a single sentence? Weren't the yachts going to approach the 200 acres he had just secured through the adjoining Peconic Bay?
Here again you are playing games to the point that I have no idea what you even mean. He is talking about conveniently accessing the golf course. Are you suggesting that since Yachts would approach through Peconic Bay, that NGLA owned and controlled Peconic Bay as well? He also mentions highways and RR's, which made access to the course more convenient. Did NGLA control these as well? Look at the quote in context. AFTER an extensive discussion of the golf course itself, including a discussion of the property dimensions and the tailoring of the borders to the course itself, CBM moves on to issues of accessibilty and convenience:
It will take two years to perfect the course. Then our members will find a golf house ready, also, with lockers and baths. We are not going into the hash and bed business. A modern Inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of the first tee by outside interests. There are sites available for houses and Yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay.
By the time the course is ready the location will be more accessible to New Yorkers. . . .[He then goes on to discuss accessing the course by car, train, etc.]
Nothing about subdividing NGLA for founder's lots.
Also, since we are playing games with dates, look at the verb tense. CBM says there "are sites available for houses". Present tense. Were there really sites available for houses on NGLA's property in December 1906? Of course not. How could this be if CBM hadn't yet finalized the purchase? How could it be if the final lines had not yet been drawn? Best case scenario for you is that it would be up to the founder, to divide up the land for houses after the golf course was completed, but that wasn't going to happen for two years, so how could there have been sites available for houses at this point in time? These fictional NGLA lots were a lot further off in time than the real development lots, yet you insist that CBM couldn't possibly have been referring to the development lots.
Again Mike, as with all of this stuff, it takes a willingness to honestly and reasonably deal with the source material, and not cling to our preconceived theories no matter what. Yet you insist that this quote definitely meant that CBM was going to build houses on NGLA? That is neither honest nor reasonable.
Finally, if indeed all of these newspapers were incorrect in reporting the current project thinking, why wouldn't Macdonald, or Emmet, or Whigham, or Travis, or any of the powerful men involved with the club have asked for a retraction, or pen a correcting story?
Probably because it wasn't a big deal. If NGLA's founders knew what was ongoing, then why bother? They surely had no idea that someone like you would come along 100+ years later and repeatedly try to rewrite NGLA's history by forcing a hypothetical from the 1904 Agreement onto CBM's 1906 plans for this particular parcel.
But let's turn it around. If you have it correct, then what happened? Where are these 90 acres of housing for the founders? Show me on a map where it would have fit? Why, a few months later, when Whigham described the course in detail, was there no mention of AND NO ROOM FOR a housing component? You insist that CBM went out of his way to insist that there were going to cottages, rentals, and/or who know what else. So where are they? When specifically did he drop the plan?
You claim he was intending on including 90 acres of housing. Where?
And don't give me any more nonsense about swamps or fairway widths. I already addressed that and you ignored my response and questions.
___________________________________________________
[Edited this later because a number of sentences and words were incoherent. Sorry about that, but I was in a hurry.]
-
Mike,
Help me decide which pithy phrase best sums up Patrick's pathetic demeanor.....
From literature "Though doth protest too much."
Mike,
Please help him decide. But first, educate him on Shakespearian quotes.
Jeff, you ignorant slut, it's "Thou doth protest too much.", not "THOUGH doth protest to much"[/size]
Or from the playground....."He who smelt it dealt it."
And Mike, to further shed light on Jeff's motives and actions, here's the email he sent me a short while ago.
"Pat, you really are an infantile prick, aren’t you?
As they say down here in Texas, have some respect for yourself.
Jeffrey D. Brauer
President
Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes, Inc.
2771 E. Broad Street
Suite 217-132
Mansfield, TX 76063
Jeff likes to instigate dissension, and then cry that it's my fault when he gets his nose bloodied, followed by lots of whining.
It's really music to my ears.
Hey Jeff, you claim to want the facts posted, but you never answered the question as to why you didn't you take Bryan Izatt to task for posting flawed information.
I'm sure that Bryan made an innocent mistake by relying on third party source material, but still, since you're so adamant about having only the facts posted, why didn't you take him to task ?
Here's another clue for you, clueless one.
Mike Cirba and I are friends.
I've had him as my guest at GCGC in the past and welcome him as my guest in the future.
I do not hold his "lefty" play or misguided opinions against him.
As to Bryan Izatt, I annointed him a colossal moron, an upgrade from his lowly moron status, when we met on the first tee at Streamsong.
Bryan has a way to go before being granted "Exalted Moron" status, but, he's making great strides in that direction.
So, maybe, just maybe you should get all of the facts surrounding my responses to them before you start mouthing off and whining.
-
Mike,
The reference I was making was to the old premise you presented where you had NGLA on the South shore of the Cold Spring Pond.
At that location, the Old North Highway ran right down the middle of the plot you identified.
Again, my interest, at this point, isn't with the siting of the course by the canal, but, the Shinnecock Inn.
Is there anyone out there that believes that CBM would build a clubhouse without access to any roads ?
-
Pat,
You deserve every name you are called, at least in private. I guess the code about keeping private emails private has evaporated in your part of the world and on this website, or you have no bounds about how low you will stoop to win a childish argument of your own making.
No matter, we have a saying in Texas that the problem with mud wrestling pigs is the you quickly realize the pigs kind of like it. Congrats on your mud wrestling win.
In the words of Roberto Di Vicenzo, "What a stupid I am!"
Listen, if you ever can produce that simple little corroboration of when NGLA bought the land and what size it was, it would lend some learning to this site. If you can't for privacy reasons (a la TePaul several years ago with Merion) I am sure we will understand that, too, and take however it affects our position on the history of NGLA for what we each deem its worth.
Again, didn't seem that out of line to ask, but apologize for whatever apparently set you off. But really, you would test the patience of Job with your ability to endlessly use every dirty fighting trick in the book - Lie, attribute false motives, set up straw men and false dichotomies, unwinnable scenarios, etc. If there is a Mrs. Mucci, she must be a saint!
-
To whomever it may concern re the GIS Viewer topo map I posted:
You should be more careful with what you rely on for your information.
Why didn't you take Bryan to task for posting a gross misrepresentation.
why you didn't you take Bryan Izatt to task for posting flawed information.
For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County. Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction. I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does. If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east. So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane. Perhaps it is all still a public road. I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.
In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map and as factual about the road's name. I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.
Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17438093199_a1a5fcf3a4_o.jpg)
-
For those interested, here is the overlay of the purported boundaries of NGLA from the schematic onto the Google Earth aerial. The boundaries should probably be marginally shifted further to the top of the image. You can click through to get a larger version of the image.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8881/17625996885_fb6eacbe9e_o.jpg) (https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8881/17625996885_fb6eacbe9e_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I'm afraid that I don't consider the "articles" as factual source material.
Newspaper articles are not "factual source material" but Realty Co. marketing ads are?
Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn
You don't think the Realty Co. might have gilded the lily just a bit? What about those "Golf courses second to none in the world."? That's golf courses plural. It seems the people of the times were more discerning than you, and didn't fall for the hype. Maybe motoring along the complete highway system at 20 mph wasn't all that exciting.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
Here's a larger scale map of the 1904 topo you can click through to. For your edification, the dotted roads are unimproved (meaning not capable of supporting auto traffic in those days). The solid roads are improved. As you may be able to see, the South Highway was improved and splits over near Far Pond with a northern track paralleling the RR on the north side on over to SHGC. You can use your imagination to place the Shinnecock Inn. The auto bridge over the canal was a single lane wooden bridge until 1908 which, I think, says something about the level of road development at the time.
The North Highway, which passed close to the Shinnecock Inn wasn't made passable to auto traffic until 1907 (see Goddard clip below). It is not clear that the North highway from development plan in the Brooklyn Eagle article is the same as was "hardened" according to the Goddard book (see slip below). The development plan North Highway doesn't map onto the existing road structure from the 1904 topo. So, did they build a completely new North Highway in 1905-07
So, it appears that the city folks could get (albeit slowly) an automobile to close to the Shinnecock Inn by 1908. From there they could purportedly have a short walk to the locker house and intended 1st tee of NGLA or to SHGC.
Sebonac Inlet Road was unimproved in 1904 and impassable to cars. I've seen no evidence indicating when it was hardened. You have said the original entrance to the current clubhouse was up White's Lane and the middle of the course, and not up Sebonac Inlet Road. There was no track of any kind up the middle of Sebonac neck in 1904.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8777/17007169393_84e1539a38_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/17438056558_f7d8227550_o.jpg) (https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/17438056558_f7d8227550_o.jpghttps://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/17438056558_f7d8227550_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.
Wow, a new high in twisted logic! :o
To summarize the video JC posted, which was quite cute, and you probably didn't watch because you might actually learn something:
Facts can be proven.
Opinions can't be proven.
If opinions can't be proven, they can't be refuted either. An opinion can never be a fact.
-
I think it's safe to say that CBM didn't design and construct his golf course without giving any thought to siting his clubhouse.
Seems reasonable. Probably not on the first 2 or 3 day horseback ride with HJW. He certainly had by the time the Shinnecock Inn was being built and he intended to have it on a site near the Shinnecock Inn and his intended 1st tee.
I think it's safe to say that the lack of funds delayed constructing his clubhouse.
That's what he said, so safe to say.
I think it's safe to say that CBM wouldn't site and construct a clubhouse that couldn't be accessed by car/road.
OK, but the train would have been better.
I think it's safe to say that the 205 acres CBM purchased, was land locked at the south end.
The site was landlocked on all sides where it wasn't waterlocked.
I think it's safe to say that CBM recognized the convenience of using the recently built Shinnecock Inn as a temporary clubhouse.
I don't recall that he ever said he wanted to use it as a clubhouse. It was to provide hash and beds for the convenience of his members. Hash and beds he didn't want to provide.
I think it's safe to say that CBM wasn't an arsonist. ;D
Thus, the burning of the Shinnecock Inn was an unexpected surprise to CBM.
Probably a surprise to everyone. The Realty Co. probably was a little surprised that their $60,000 investment went up in flames after only a year.
CBM states that it was the burning down of the Shinnecock Inn that was the impetus for him to build his clubhouse.
Sure did, we're on a roll here. But, it was also a time when he decided to abandon the site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that he'd intended to use for his clubhouse.
Regarding the current clubhouse site, he states: "... for today we have an unexcelled site"
So, did the site suddenly become "unexcelled" only after the Shinnecock Inn burned to the ground.
The site was the site, it didn't change. Did CBM change his opinion of it as site for his clubhouse? Who knows?
Or, was the site always "unexcelled" ?
The site was the site with whatever features it had. Maybe he didn't recognize it initially. Maybe he initially wanted his clubhouse to be "near" the Shinnecock Inn so they could provide the hash and beds he didn't want to or for its proximity to improved roads, or proximity to the train station.
Did CBM only become aware of the "unexcelled" site after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, or was he aware of that site
as he routed and designed holes # 1 and 18 ?
Beats me. Do you have some facts to bring to the table or just more opinions?
CBM further states: "There are no more beautiful golfing vistas in the WORLD than those from the National Golf Club..."
So, did he have a moment of clarity, only after the fire trucks pulled up to the Shinnecock Inn ?
Did he have to wait until the smoke cleared his eyes before he had his epiphany ?
Asked and answered. You're getting repetitive.
Like any intelligent person, especially one so studied, did he recognize the majesty of the current site from the get go.
Or, was he weighing his options ?
Let's see, shall I choose.......
1 A mundane site in the shadows of the Shinnecock Clubhouse
2 A majestic site unrivaled in golf, sitting high upon a bluff overlooking Sebonic Bay
Sounds like a rhetorical opinion coming.
My reading of his words is that when the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he gave some fleeting thought to constructing another temporary clubhouse, for convenience sake, as he still had the parking lot of the SI close by, but, instead, decided on siting his clubhouse where it was always intended.
Did he construct a first temporary clubhouse? The SI was to provide hash and beds, not be a clubhouse. He said he abandoned his clubhouse site "near" the Shinnecock Inn and decided to put the clubhouse overlooking Peconic Bay. He didn't say why he abandoned his original site. He didn't say he always intended to put it overlooking Peconic Bay. That's your opinion and leap of logic absent of any factual substance.
Another quote from CBM is found on page 191 of "Scotland's Gift" where he states that "The Sahara of the Royal St George's at Sandwich I found in OUR SECOND HOLE.
Now, if you've played NGLA, you realize that the tee for the second hole is but a wedge from the current clubhouse.
This also leads me to believe that CBM ALWAYS intended the clubhouse to be sited exactly where it is.
His initially intended second hole would follow his initially intended first hole that he wrote was near to the initially intended clubhouse site near the Shinnecock Inn.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.Really! I hadn't really noticed that. Too bad your story is just that - a story, an opinion, with no provable facts.
-
Just one last question, in reviewing this thread.
In the very first response, a poster suggested that routing the course where the turn hits the water would simulate TOC as much as the out and back, as TOC starts in town and only hits the firth at 7-12 tee. In in legendary open mindset, of course Patrick dismisses this immediately in favor of his long held opinion, but I wonder what others thought on this notion is?
If he was making homage to TOC, wouldn't water at the turn, rather than a clubhouse view be his first thought? Only to be reconsidered (as his words seem to say) under dire circumstances later? I mean, we can all understand the magnificent water views, but do we know that is how CBM felt, given his goal?
-
For those interested, here is the overlay of the purported boundaries of NGLA from the schematic onto the Google Earth aerial. The boundaries should probably be marginally shifted further to the top of the image. You can click through to get a larger version of the image.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8881/17625996885_fb6eacbe9e_o.jpg) (https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8881/17625996885_fb6eacbe9e_o.jpg)
Bryan,
Thanks for providing this. It leads me to the conclusion that without the actual metes and bounds of the property we are debating from a shared erroneous understanding all thinking that the boundaries of that scorecard drawing are accurately drawn. Clearly areas that ARE the golf course today fall outside those boundaries and in other areas those drawn boundaries extend into areas that are NOT NGLA, such as the extension over into Shinnecock Golf Club. ;)
Either that, or you've miscalculated in your drawing it over Google Earth, but I know you're pretty precise in your calculations, so I think the first statement I made is true. Thanks for your efforts.
-
One of the things that confuses me about the routing is that CBM famously routed Chicago GC to protect against his slice yet didn't seem to do the same at NGLA.
edit: sorry, probably more appropriate for another thread.
-
In the very first response, a poster suggested that routing the course where the turn hits the water would simulate TOC as much as the out and back, as TOC starts in town and only hits the firth at 7-12 tee. In in legendary open mindset, of course Patrick dismisses this immediately in favor of his long held opinion, but I wonder what others thought on this notion is?
If he was making homage to TOC, wouldn't water at the turn, rather than a clubhouse view be his first thought? Only to be reconsidered (as his words seem to say) under dire circumstances later? I mean, we can all understand the magnificent water views, but do we know that is how CBM felt, given his goal?
Jeff,
IF Macdonald had a site where auto travel could easily get anywhere on his property and IF he had money for a clubhouse from the get-go, who knows what the routing would have looked like.
We know he found desirable landforms that convinced him he could get some of his Ideal holes built, including the Alps, redan, and a place for an Eden with a pond carry that he thought appropriately penalized the duffer, and also turned and came upon the idea of the variable tee-shot carry of a Cape hole, which he thought somewhat an original concept. That's what we know so it's safe to assume that he would have included those particular landforms in any land acquisition and would have worked those holes into any routing.
One could also assume that he would have wanted his course to reach the high bluff out where today's 1 and 18 are located but who knows for sure exactly how he envisioned that being used for golf except that it approximated the type of landforms he was seeking and provided a glorious view. Anything else is speculation.
However, his limiting factor was that he didn't have a site easily accessible by auto traffic to anywhere on the property and he didn't have money for his clubhouse. Thus, his die was cast in terms of where he needed to start and end his golf course.
That basic fact and the fact he wanted to use the landforms he earlier identified for the template holes as described helped define what the final routing turned out to me.
Personally, I don't think he gave much of a damn about either the clubhouse or the proposed housing although I think it clearly was still in the plan in December 1906. I think after securing the land CBM now had his personal playground and given his domineering personality, I think he proceeded to use the landforms as he saw fit, made adjustments as he felt necessary, extended the width of most holes to create alternate "safe" routes for the duffer, and if he used up more land than he originally estimated, probably figured it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
-
However, his limiting factor was that he didn't have a site easily accessible by auto traffic to anywhere on the property and he didn't have money for his clubhouse. Thus, his die was cast in terms of where he needed to start and end his golf course.
How did he get the 10k truckloads of dirt out to the site? I can't seem to reconcile the notion that Sebonac Inlet road was not passable and yet he was capable of bringing 10k truckloads of dirt out there. I will concede I know nothing of the difference in capability of the early 20th century autos and dump trucks.
-
JC,
Great question and I don't presume to know the answer other than to say this was a "development" under construction.
In other words, I'm speaking from the perspective of CBM's choices in December 1906 and earlier. Macdonald told us that previously the site wasn't even walkable and he and Whigham had to navigate the property on horseback.
We also know that this was a multi-year effort, with Macdonald telling us that he and his committee would determine which holes to build where and stake out the boundaries over the next several months (some news reported 3 months, some 5 months) and then the subsequent construction and grow-in took years, with the course finally having a "soft opening" three and a half years later in July of 1910.
What were the logistics to get truckloads of dirt out there? When was the property cleared of all of the brambles and the swampland filled in? I would assume that it was after CBM secured the land in December of 1906...after all, why would he go through that major expenditure without knowing he could actually buy the land? We don't know all the details, but if one looks at the overall timeline of the project it was a moving picture, obviously.
-
Pat,
You deserve every name you are called, at least in private. I guess the code about keeping private emails private has evaporated in your part of the world and on this website, or you have no bounds about how low you will stoop to win a childish argument of your own making.
Jeff,
What code ?
You're the idiot who sent the unsolicited email to me.
You're the one initiating the personal attacks.
And, every time you initiate one of those attacks, you get your nose bloodied, and subsequently begin your pitiful sniveling and whining.
No matter, we have a saying in Texas that the problem with mud wrestling pigs is the you quickly realize the pigs kind of like it. Congrats on your mud wrestling win.
Ahh yes, Texas, where men are men and the sheep are nervous.
In the words of Roberto Di Vicenzo, "What a stupid I am!"
Listen, if you ever can produce that simple little corroboration of when NGLA bought the land and what size it was, it would lend some learning to this site.
I indicated that I would do so when you asked the first time.
So, why are you repeating your request
If you can't for privacy reasons (a la TePaul several years ago with Merion) I am sure we will understand that, too, and take however it affects our position on the history of NGLA for what we each deem its worth.
When I'm in receipt of the specifics, I'll post them.
I previously indicated that I'd do so.
Again, didn't seem that out of line to ask, but apologize for whatever apparently set you off.
"Whatever apparently set me off" ?
So now you're pleading innocence.
Go back and reread what you typed, perhaps that will provide some insight.
But really, you would test the patience of Job with your ability to endlessly use every dirty fighting trick in the book - Lie, attribute false motives, set up straw men and false dichotomies, unwinnable scenarios, etc.
I see, you pretend to hold out the olive branch and then make more personal attacks.
If that isn't a weasel like, low life tactic, I don't know what is.
But, let's just start with the first of your allegations.
Cite for me where I lied.
If there is a Mrs. Mucci, she must be a saint!
There is a Mrs Mucci and I've nicknamed her Farenheit, because she's perfect 98.6 % of the time
She's beautiful, inside and out.
She's certainly not a whiner.
She's a winner.
Everyone and I mean everyone understands why I married her.
No one knows why she married me. ;D
-
For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County. Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction. I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does.
You're WRONG again.
Go to Google Maps for verification
If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east.
That was the original entrance to the clubhouse.
At that location you will find the original entrance gate confirming same when you make the left off of Sebonac Inlet Rd into White's Lane.
So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane.
NO, the county doesn't consider the whole road to be White's lane.
And, as you enter NGLA from Sebonac Inlet Rd, the massive gates greet you along with notices that it's private property.
When I'm there next I'll take pictures for you.
The road you claim is White's Lane is on private property.
It is the driveway leading to the clubhouse and NOT a public road.
Obviously, you've never been there to see for yourself
Perhaps it is all still a public road.
It is NOT a public road.
It's on private property and is the club's driveway.
I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.
Anyone who has been to NGLA knows it's private property and the driveway into the club.
But, please feel free to keep insisting that it's a public road.
I like it when you're wrong but redouble your efforts. ;D
In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map and as factual about the road's name.
I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.
You can rely upon the SCGISV all you want.
The road you allege is a public road is a private driveway.
Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.
Too bad that Google Maps agrees with me.
Zero in on the driveway and let me know if it says White's Lane, OR, if White's Lane enters the property by the 13th hole.
At some point you're going to have to admit that I'm right and that you and your Suffolk County GIS Viewer are wrong.
Do you have the fortitude to do that ?
My argument is factually correct and you've obviously been led down the wrong path, and a private one at that
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17438093199_a1a5fcf3a4_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I'm afraid that I don't consider the "articles" as factual source material.
Newspaper articles are not "factual source material" but Realty Co. marketing ads are?
Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn
You don't think the Realty Co. might have gilded the lily just a bit?
NO, and the 1904 map confirms same.
What about those "Golf courses second to none in the world."? That's golf courses plural. It seems the people of the times were more discerning than you, and didn't fall for the hype. Maybe motoring along the complete highway system at 20 mph wasn't all that exciting.
Your ignorance is stunning.
Have you ever heard of Shinnecock Hlls, Maidstone, Oneck and Westhampton golf courses.
Other than Oneck, they're all still there and deemed second to none by some.
Have you heard of them
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
Here's a larger scale map of the 1904 topo you can click through to. For your edification, the dotted roads are unimproved (meaning not capable of supporting auto traffic in those days).
That's NOT what the dotted lines mean.
In previous threads, numerous photos of cars on dirt roads were posted.
The solid roads are improved. As you may be able to see, the South Highway was improved and splits over near Far Pond with a northern track paralleling the RR on the north side on over to SHGC. You can use your imagination to place the Shinnecock Inn. The auto bridge over the canal was a single lane wooden bridge until 1908 which, I think, says something about the level of road development at the time.
It says nothing about the roads, only about the bridge spanning the Shinnecock canal.
The North Highway, which passed close to the Shinnecock Inn wasn't made passable to auto traffic until 1907 (see Goddard clip below). It is not clear that the North highway from development plan in the Brooklyn Eagle article is the same as was "hardened" according to the Goddard book (see slip below). The development plan North Highway doesn't map onto the existing road structure from the 1904 topo. So, did they build a completely new North Highway in 1905-07
In other words, another road.
So, it appears that the city folks could get (albeit slowly) an automobile to close to the Shinnecock Inn by 1908. From there they could purportedly have a short walk to the locker house and intended 1st tee of NGLA or to SHGC.
What locker house ?
None was ever built.
Sebonac Inlet Road was unimproved in 1904 and impassable to cars.
Unimproved, or unpaved roads didn't prevent motor vehicles from using them as you insist.
I've seen no evidence indicating when it was hardened
The "hardening" of the roads is immaterial.
The dirt roads were more than adequate to allow vehicular traffic.
Or, do you think that CBM was lying when he stated that they used 10,000, repeat, 10,000 truckloads of topsoil to improve the quality of the turf.
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05/MackAB_2500.jpg)
And, that was prior to the completion of the clubhouse.
How do you suppose those 20,000 sorties arrived at NGLA ?
Do you think that they were airlifted ?
Or do you think that the roads, improved and unimproved, allowed them access.
Just admit that you're wrong........... again..
You have said the original entrance to the current clubhouse was up White's Lane and the middle of the course, and not up Sebonac Inlet Road. There was no track of any kind up the middle of Sebonac neck in 1904.
My god, you are a colossal moron.
Let me help you................ again.
The clubhouse was built in 1909.
The entrance to the clubhouse was also created in 1909 vis a vis White's lane.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8777/17007169393_84e1539a38_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/17438056558_f7d8227550_o.jpg) (https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/17438056558_f7d8227550_o.jpghttps://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/17438056558_f7d8227550_o.jpg)
-
"A complete system of good roads for riding, driving and motoring."
Such a simple sentence that I believe is being misunderstood by some.
For example, Pat wrote, “Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn. You don't suppose that those cars were airlifted in, do you?” {underline mine)
A complete highway system? Pat I think you need to get back behind the wheel of your Model A and take a ride on the LIE so that you’ll appreciate what a “highway system” is. It certainly isn’t the definition of the “system of good roads” that the advertisement was referring. These were basically wide dirt roads and nothing more.
How can I justify that statement? Simple, take a look at the road and the automobile being driven on it that was the illustration on the top of the advertisement. If anyone would want to present a picture illustrating the absolute best view of the “good system of roads” that this was describing, it would be the creator of this advertisement. Here it is:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLA%20road_zpshyazxtpf.jpg) (http://s364.photobucket.com/user/PhiltheAuthor/media/NGLA%20road_zpshyazxtpf.jpg.html)
There is absolutely no way that auto is being driven on any part of a highway system. Is it a good road by ca. 1910 standards? Absolutely yes. Could it be used for trucks hauling dirt to the building site? Absolutely yes. Could LARGE trucks be used to haul this dirt? NO! First the roads wouldn’t support them and secondly there simply weren’t any trucks “large” in the sense that we would view them today.
Consider, how was the dirt loaded into and out of these trucks? Almost certainly by hand, one shovel at a time since the hydraulics for creating a truck bed to dump the dirt from it almost assuredly not been invented by this time and large front loader type tractors also.
The problem here is that we keep viewing it in terms of our late 20th/early 21st century eyes and minds. Consider what was actually meant by the phrase, "A complete system of good roads for riding, driving and motoring." Obviously the three words have very different and specific meanings to the person who wrote it and hopefully, from his perspective, for those who would have read it back then.
Is it possible that Riding = Horseback Riding? Driving = Normal Automobile use? Motoring = Devil-May-Care high speed (for those days) adventure behind the wheel? I submit that is precisely what was meant. From the illustration shown which, again, is as an exact a depiction of what the looked like at the time of the advertisement, there is absolutely no way the "system of good roads" were the major thoroughfare as being claimed and a “complete highway system” it was not.
-
Patrick,
I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.
Wow, a new high in twisted logic! :o
To summarize the video JC posted, which was quite cute, and you probably didn't watch because you might actually learn something:
Facts can be proven.
Opinions can't be proven.
If opinions can't be proven, they can't be refuted either. An opinion can never be a fact.
It's MY OPINION THAT THE SUN WILL RISE IN THE EAST TOMORROW AND THAT IT WILL SET IN THE WEST. ;D
Let's wait until tomorrow and see if my opinion is in fact, factual.
-
Phil,
Interesting, thanks. Isn't even the term "highway", as in "North Highway" completely misunderstood by most based on our applying of modern concepts around historic terms and realities?
-
Just one last question, in reviewing this thread.
In the very first response, a poster suggested that routing the course where the turn hits the water would simulate TOC as much as the out and back, as TOC starts in town and only hits the firth at 7-12 tee. In in legendary open mindset, of course Patrick dismisses this immediately in favor of his long held opinion, but I wonder what others thought on this notion is?
Jeff,
You just can't help yourself.
Why interject me into your post ?
It's just another example of your sniveling, whining nature.
Macdonald dismisses your claim on page 191 when he announces that the Sahara hole is his second hole.
Under your rotation, it would be his 11th hole.
If he was making homage to TOC, wouldn't water at the turn, rather than a clubhouse view be his first thought?
But, he was NOT making homage to TOC.
You're confused with ANGC.
Is it now your claim that # 11 at ANGC should have been # 9
Only to be reconsidered (as his words seem to say) under dire circumstances later? I mean, we can all understand the magnificent water views, but do we know that is how CBM felt, given his goal?
Yes, we do.
And CBM clearly stated that the Sahara hole, the current second hole, was HIS second hole.
Try reading "Scotland's Gift" it might help reorient your thinking.
-
However, his limiting factor was that he didn't have a site easily accessible by auto traffic to anywhere on the property and he didn't have money for his clubhouse. Thus, his die was cast in terms of where he needed to start and end his golf course.
How did he get the 10k truckloads of dirt out to the site? I can't seem to reconcile the notion that Sebonac Inlet road was not passable and yet he was capable of bringing 10k truckloads of dirt out there. I will concede I know nothing of the difference in capability of the early 20th century autos and dump trucks.
JC,
Jim Kennedy provided photos of dump trucks circa 1915.
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05/MackAB_2500.jpg)
Bryan Izatt and Jeff Brauer would have you believe that the roads were impassable, hence the trucks had to be airlifted in.
CBM had heard about the Wright brothers success in December of 1903 and he immediately commissioned them to airlift the 10,000 truckloads.
Never forget that Bryan Izatt has clearly stated that the roads were impassable to motor vehicle traffic.
So those trucks had to be airlifted or brought in by ship, OR those 20,000 trips to and from NGLA with full and empty trucks, had to accommodated by the local roads, improved or unimproved.
At some point Bryan and Jeff are just going to have to admit that they're wrong and that I'm right............... again ;D
-
Phil,
Interesting, thanks. Isn't even the term "highway", as in "North Highway" completely misunderstood by most based on our applying of modern concepts around historic terms and realities?
Mike,
Nice try.
Jim Kennedy posted pictures of the types of trucks used to haul dirt.
Let me make it easy for you.
Here's the truck.
Looks pretty big and sturdy to me
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05/MackAB_2500.jpg)
-
Phil,
Interesting, thanks. Isn't even the term "highway", as in "North Highway" completely misunderstood by most based on our applying of modern concepts around historic terms and realities?
Mike,
Nice try.
Yeah, things in those days were understood, like their trucks for instance.
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05/MackAB_2500.jpg)
-
Pat,
You must be confusing me with someone who gives a truck. ;)
Seriously, where do you see me mentioning trucks?
-
Pat,
You must be confusing me with someone who gives a truck. ;)
Seriously, where do you see me mentioning trucks?
Mike,
You mentioned roads or the lack of roads.
Since trucks aren't equipped with pontoons I have to assume that they were using the roads, the roads that you and Bryan claim weren't there. ;D
-
Pat,
This was a 3.5 year construction project from securing the land to the soft opening in July 1910.
Once the property was cleared they likely just rolled right onto parts of the property. This had almost nothing to do with roads or their conditions providing access to the property in Dec 1906.
-
Patrick,
I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.
Wow, a new high in twisted logic! :o
To summarize the video JC posted, which was quite cute, and you probably didn't watch because you might actually learn something:
Facts can be proven.
Opinions can't be proven.
If opinions can't be proven, they can't be refuted either. An opinion can never be a fact.
It's MY OPINION THAT THE SUN WILL RISE IN THE EAST TOMORROW AND THAT IT WILL SET IN THE WEST. ;D
Let's wait until tomorrow and see if my opinion is in fact, factual.
It may be your opinion, but it is everyone else's fact. Back to English language 101 for you, with the dunce cap on. :P
-
Pat,
Nice try... But that truck is ca. 1915 and not anything like the trucks used during the 1907-1910 period when the course was being built and the dirt being hauled. In 1907 they were still selling automobiles that ran on STEAM! The advancements in automobile and truck technology year to year during that time frame and through the 30s was quite dramatic.
Yet, even if you want to believe that that type of truck was used, take a good look at it for it isn't a truck with a open bed and the cover is over a series of drawers which open on each side of the truck...
This would never be used to haul dirt...
By the way, no thoughts as to the PICTURE used in the advertisement as the OPTIMAL view of what the "good roads" looked like?
-
Who said anything about "Trucks"?
Not Macdonald.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7668/17020702914_62f1c6a8c7_b.jpg)
-
Mike, even more interesting! Back at you...
-
Mike, you always exaggerate the construction phase when discussing NGLA. NGLA hosted an important and well publicized tournament in July 1910, but they had been golfing on the course for over a year prior to that. (They had no clubhouse and the Inn had burned, so it wasn't as if they were fully operational, but the course existed and they were golfing.) It took time and effort to grow adequate turf at NGLA, a CBM was always tweaking, but I think it is misleading when you imply that they were still in the throws of primary construction in 1910.
_______________________________________________________
J.C.
You asked about how "CBM famously routed Chicago GC to protect against his slice yet didn't seem to do the same at NGLA."
I don't have the answer but I have always wondered if, like other CBM legends, the famous story about him routing CGC to protect against his slice was more apocryphal than actual.
________________________________________________________
As for the 10,000 truckloads of topsoil, I assume that by that point in time the roads must have been passable, and the clearing and shaping and "construction" basically finished.
________________________________________________________
Bryan, I have trouble placing too much weight on the 1904 Atlas as an accurate source for the state of the parcel in 1906/1907. The date on that old atlas is 1904 and at that point the Shinnecock Hills parcel was undeveloped. But the developer purchased the property in 1905 and beginning in 1905-1907, the Shinnecock and Peconic Bay Company seems to have been investing substantial resources in developing the parcel, and by April 1907 they stated they had built four roads, with in the works. They also state that every building parcel had road frontage, so at least a few of these roads must have been the longer, east west roads. (Given that road building season is summer, It seems likely that these roads had been built the summer before.)
The Panic of 1907 might have put a damper on the progress of the development, but by that point it seems like quite a lot had been accomplished.
That said, we are probably still talking about fairly primitive roads, but passable roads nonetheless.
As for the state of the road out onto the neck, I don't think it matters. If CBM had needed a better road he could have built one.
-
Macdonald never mentioned trucks and it seems more likely that some sort of horse-drawn carts were employed. Here's some state of the art trucks used for hauling in 1907.
http://www.google.com/search?q=1907+truck&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=FxldPYbY5m4rkM%253A%252CdNq9W6Cj_XmVWM%252C_%253BWkjOFQM-zHBaEM%253A%252CrieGeKBgbhXnKM%252C_%253BP6WGPrsduiO5pM%253A%252CAHyStjYILjWL9M%252C_%253B_WDvvOTqty9AGM%253A%252CAHyStjYILjWL9M%252C_&usg=__i0ot0GjcNpuGcwJEjrsoWQCrU_M%3D&sa=X&ei=U9JUVar0FeuIsQSh4YHgBA&ved=0CCgQ7Ak
-
Just one last question, in reviewing this thread.
In the very first response, a poster suggested that routing the course where the turn hits the water would simulate TOC as much as the out and back, as TOC starts in town and only hits the firth at 7-12 tee. In in legendary open mindset, of course Patrick dismisses this immediately in favor of his long held opinion, but I wonder what others thought on this notion is?
If he was making homage to TOC, wouldn't water at the turn, rather than a clubhouse view be his first thought? Only to be reconsidered (as his words seem to say) under dire circumstances later? I mean, we can all understand the magnificent water views, but do we know that is how CBM felt, given his goal?
From an aerial view, the property does look something like The Old Course property. CBM says he was trying to build the ideal course with holes modeled after the best from Scotland. Almost immediately he said that he and HJW found sites for the Alps, Redan, Eden and a Cape hole. All four of those are more or less in the middle of the property, not near either the Shinnecock Inn or Peconic Bay ends. My guess is that he continued looking for land that suited his other ideal hole ideas and tried to string them together so that some were near the sea, as most Scottish links courses had, and near the Shinnecock Inn which had the closest best access for his members. Hence the more or less out and back routing.
-
Agreed Brian.
-
Bryan, while I generally agree, I don't think we can assume that because he only called out four holes by name, that those were the only holes he had yet found, or the only ideas he had. Three of the holes he named were three of the most famous holes on earth, and the same three that he planned on trying to copy closely, so it doesn't take much imagination to understand why he might have wanted to highlight these three. The fourth was one that they were understandably excited about, and thought destined for greatness.
Further, CBM tells us more about the routing than just the existence of these four holes. For example, it had already been decided that the course would start and end near the Shinnecock Inn, the course would run along Bullshead Bay for one mile, and the course would use a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay. So he had already decided to generally follow the water prior to this point in time. Piece this together, and it seems to me that CBM new quite a lot about the routing at this point, even though there are many details to be worked out.
-
............................
________________________________________________________
As for the 10,000 truckloads of topsoil, I assume that by that point in time the roads must have been passable, and the clearing and shaping and "construction" basically finished.
Not to split hairs but see previous posts - it may or may not have been "truckloads". It could have been horse drawn wagon loads. I have seen pictures of road construction in that era and there were horses and wagons.
________________________________________________________
Bryan, I have trouble placing too much weight on the 1904 Atlas as an accurate source for the state of the parcel in 1906/1907. The date on that old atlas is 1904 and at that point the Shinnecock Hills parcel was undeveloped. But the developer purchased the property in 1905 and beginning in 1905-1907, the Shinnecock and Peconic Bay Company seems to have been investing substantial resources in developing the parcel, and by April 1907 they stated they had built four roads, with in the works. They also state that every building parcel had road frontage, so at least a few of these roads must have been the longer, east west roads. (Given that road building season is summer, It seems likely that these roads had been built the summer before.)
The Panic of 1907 might have put a damper on the progress of the development, but by that point it seems like quite a lot had been accomplished.
That said, we are probably still talking about fairly primitive roads, but passable roads nonetheless.
As for the state of the road out onto the neck, I don't think it matters. If CBM had needed a better road he could have built one.
The 1904 topo is about as factual as we can get about the state of the roads in 1904. When the Realty Co. bought the Shinnecock Hills land they did move quickly to make it marketable. If you haven't read the Goddard book, you should take a look. This clip says something about the roads. Not sure what else, apart from surveying that they did to "develop" the property. Certainly there are lots of contemporaneous articles and ads promoting the development, but apart from CBM and NGLA, not much else seems to have moved. Maybe it was just too far out and remote for the NY crowd at that time.
"fairly primitive roads, but passable roads nonetheless" seems like a reasonable description. In 1907 cars and trucks and supporting infrastructure was primitive, at best, by our current standards.
No doubt CBM could have and did build a road. But initially, if he didn't have enough money for a clubhouse, I'm not sure he had enough money to build a road. Probably one reason he wanted, initially, to start his course near the Inn. It was at least near roads such as they were when he arrived and started construction.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I posted about the truckloads before I saw Mike's post about "loads." It was a good catch by Mike and duly noted.
I have no idea what the trail out on the neck was like in 1904 or even 1906, except that it probably wasn't much of a road. But getting access out onto to the property would have become a priority when they actually started building in the spring of 1907, so at that point they needed some sort of road. It could have been wagons but 10,000 wagons full of topsoil needed a road. It could have been a temporary RR, but rails need a roadbed. So there had to have been roads, even if temporary.
That's about as far into the road discussion as I'll delve, because I just don't understand its importance.
-
For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County. Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction. I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does.
You're WRONG again.
Go to Google Maps for verification
Google Maps is more factual than the County GIS Viewer?! :o Back to the dunce corner for you.
If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east.
That was the original entrance to the clubhouse.
At that location you will find the original entrance gate confirming same when you make the left off of Sebonac Inlet Rd into White's Lane.
So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane.
NO, the county doesn't consider the whole road to be White's lane.
Then why did they label it that way? Why don't you get a statement from the County to prove your opinion.
And, as you enter NGLA from Sebonac Inlet Rd, the massive gates greet you along with notices that it's private property.
When I'm there next I'll take pictures for you.
No need. I know what the sign says. Whether the road is private or not does not mean it is not named in County records.
The road you claim is White's Lane is on private property.
It is the driveway leading to the clubhouse and NOT a public road.
Obviously, you've never been there to see for yourself
Shrubland Road crosses private property but is a public road. The Google Maps source you rely on shows two named roads, Rd C and E Rd, running down the middle of NGLA. Because Google names them does that mean they're public?
Perhaps it is all still a public road.
It is NOT a public road.
It's on private property and is the club's driveway.
I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.
Anyone who has been to NGLA knows it's private property and the driveway into the club.
But, please feel free to keep insisting that it's a public road.
I like it when you're wrong but redouble your efforts. ;D
Perhaps you missed the word "perhaps". Good to see you bite. Good thing you can type fast without reading and understanding. By the way, roads on private land are not named on Long Island?
In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map and as factual about the road's name.
I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.
You can rely upon the SCGISV all you want.
The road you allege is a public road is a private driveway.
I said perhaps to bait you. You bit. What does that have to do with the factual basis of the SCGISV, as you call it.
Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.
Too bad that Google Maps agrees with me.
Zero in on the driveway and let me know if it says White's Lane, OR, if White's Lane enters the property by the 13th hole.
Too bad you missed the point - again.
At some point you're going to have to admit that I'm right and that you and your Suffolk County GIS Viewer are wrong.
I think in good conscience that you had better tell Suffolk County that they are wrong and that they'd better get together with Google to get it right. I wonder (not really) where you think Google gets the information that it put on it's maps?
Do you have the fortitude to do that ?
My argument is factually correct and you've obviously been led down the wrong path, and a private one at that
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17438093199_a1a5fcf3a4_o.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I posted about the truckloads before I saw Mike's post about "loads." It was a good catch by Mike and duly noted.
I have no idea what the trail out on the neck was like in 1904 or even 1906, except that it probably wasn't much of a road. But getting access out onto to the property would have become a priority when they actually started building in the spring of 1907, so at that point they needed some sort of road. It could have been wagons but 10,000 wagons full of topsoil needed a road. It could have been a temporary RR, but rails need a roadbed. So there had to have been roads, even if temporary.
That's about as far into the road discussion as I'll delve, because I just don't understand its importance.
Sure, I agree that they would have needed "roads" during construction, but I imagined that they would have taken a scaper out and just scraped a flat dirt path. I can't imagine that they would have graveling it or paving it would be too time consuming and expensive and would have had to be ripped out in the end. Laying a rail bed also seems improbable for the same reason.
This is a Patrick tangent where he's arguing for argument sake. Time to move on.
-
Phil,
Can you just imagine the lovely lady in the elevated rear seat zipping along at 20 mph with the wind ripping her bonnet off, and the road dust in her eyes, while she tries to avoid the bug splats on the the 3 hour drive out from the city? ;)
"A complete system of good roads for riding, driving and motoring."
Such a simple sentence that I believe is being misunderstood by some.
For example, Pat wrote, “Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn. You don't suppose that those cars were airlifted in, do you?” {underline mine)
A complete highway system? Pat I think you need to get back behind the wheel of your Model A and take a ride on the LIE so that you’ll appreciate what a “highway system” is. It certainly isn’t the definition of the “system of good roads” that the advertisement was referring. These were basically wide dirt roads and nothing more.
How can I justify that statement? Simple, take a look at the road and the automobile being driven on it that was the illustration on the top of the advertisement. If anyone would want to present a picture illustrating the absolute best view of the “good system of roads” that this was describing, it would be the creator of this advertisement. Here it is:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLA%20road_zpshyazxtpf.jpg) (http://s364.photobucket.com/user/PhiltheAuthor/media/NGLA%20road_zpshyazxtpf.jpg.html)
There is absolutely no way that auto is being driven on any part of a highway system. Is it a good road by ca. 1910 standards? Absolutely yes. Could it be used for trucks hauling dirt to the building site? Absolutely yes. Could LARGE trucks be used to haul this dirt? NO! First the roads wouldn’t support them and secondly there simply weren’t any trucks “large” in the sense that we would view them today.
Consider, how was the dirt loaded into and out of these trucks? Almost certainly by hand, one shovel at a time since the hydraulics for creating a truck bed to dump the dirt from it almost assuredly not been invented by this time and large front loader type tractors also.
The problem here is that we keep viewing it in terms of our late 20th/early 21st century eyes and minds. Consider what was actually meant by the phrase, "A complete system of good roads for riding, driving and motoring." Obviously the three words have very different and specific meanings to the person who wrote it and hopefully, from his perspective, for those who would have read it back then.
Is it possible that Riding = Horseback Riding? Driving = Normal Automobile use? Motoring = Devil-May-Care high speed (for those days) adventure behind the wheel? I submit that is precisely what was meant. From the illustration shown which, again, is as an exact a depiction of what the looked like at the time of the advertisement, there is absolutely no way the "system of good roads" were the major thoroughfare as being claimed and a “complete highway system” it was not.
-
Bryan, I don't presume to know what they did to build the access road(s), but one thing that might be worth considering is that this land was apparently all sand, which isn't really stable enough by itself to make a very good road surface, especially for narrow tires or wagon wheels. So it wouldn't shock me if they had put something down --clay, gravel, or oil or something to bind or harden the road(s), and to keep the surface passable.
-
Even today, there are areas of new construction on golf courses where truckloads of material has to be transloaded to smaller vehicles to get to hard to reach areas. Could have transferred to smaller, horse pulled carts if required. So, I agree with David and Mike the soil loads have little bearing on whatever else is being argued here.
Pat, you mention the second hole etc. in SC. I have read it, and am aware it was published in 1928, long after the issue was settled, and think he was referring to the reconfigured hole numbers, so your argument there doesn't hold water.
Mike,
I agree practicality played the largest role, but these things are never black and white, and somewhere in CBM's head the out and back routing of TOC had to be in there. I suspect it was a combo of factors that led him to place the start near the Inn. Of course, Pat would convince me otherwise when he has the chance to show us his info on the land owned behind current nine green. If they never owned land there at the time of course conception, then perhaps he is right. If they did own five acres or so behind nine green, then the probably lived up to CBM's words that "it was our intention to start near the Shinnecock Inn" in more ways than one.
-
Pat,
This was a 3.5 year construction project from securing the land to the soft opening in July 1910.
Mike,
They commenced construction immediately after securing the land
Once the property was cleared they likely just rolled right onto parts of the property.
This had almost nothing to do with roads or their conditions providing access to the property in Dec 1906.
And how did they clear the land ? BY HAND ? Or with equipment, equipment that would have to access the site via roads.
How did they get the 10,000 loads of soil to NGLA ? Lufthansa ? BOAC ? PAN AM ?
Or, by motor vehicles.
The lack of prudent reasoning, for fear of admitting that access roads were operational is stunning.
And, it reveals elements of disingenuoslness
-
Pat,
Nice try... But that truck is ca. 1915 and not anything like the trucks used during the 1907-1910 period when the course was being built and the dirt being hauled.
Phil, sorry, but, you don't know what you're talking about.
Companies like Mack, Ford and International, the biggest names in trucks had trucks similar to the one Jim Kennedy posted.
Mack Truck had a 7 ton dump truck in 1907, just the kind of truck that would be perfect for delivering loads of soil to NGLA
In 1907 they were still selling automobiles that ran on STEAM! The advancements in automobile and truck technology year to year during that time frame and through the 30s was quite dramatic.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Mack, Ford & International had large trucks operational
Yet, even if you want to believe that that type of truck was used, take a good look at it for it isn't a truck with a open bed and the cover is over a series of drawers which open on each side of the truck...
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
In 1907 Mack had a 7 ton dump truck, a truck perfect for delivering dirt to NGLA.
This would never be used to haul dirt..
But, a 1907, 7 ton, Mack Dump Truck would be perfect for the job.
By the way, no thoughts as to the PICTURE used in the advertisement as the OPTIMAL view of what the "good roads" looked like?
Earlier photos were posted of dirt roads on Long Island and those photos showed motor vehicles traversing those roads quite easily.
-
Pat,
I'm tired of doing all the work. :D
Since you brought it up why don't you tell us when they cleared the land, which you know was unwalkable. Before or after securing the land in December 1906?
And since you brought it up, how do you think they cleared the land? Bulldozers? ;D
-
Macdonald never mentioned trucks and it seems more likely that some sort of horse-drawn carts were employed. Here's some state of the art trucks used for hauling in 1907.
http://www.google.com/search?q=1907+truck&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=FxldPYbY5m4rkM%253A%252CdNq9W6Cj_XmVWM%252C_%253BWkjOFQM-zHBaEM%253A%252CrieGeKBgbhXnKM%252C_%253BP6WGPrsduiO5pM%253A%252CAHyStjYILjWL9M%252C_%253B_WDvvOTqty9AGM%253A%252CAHyStjYILjWL9M%252C_&usg=__i0ot0GjcNpuGcwJEjrsoWQCrU_M%3D&sa=X&ei=U9JUVar0FeuIsQSh4YHgBA&ved=0CCgQ7Ak
Mike,
Please post the photo of the 1907 Mack 7 ton Dump Truck, an ideal truck for carrying and delivering 10,000 loads of dirt.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
Nope, no need to post your imaginary "dump" truck because such a thing wasn't invented by 1907. Perhaps once you answer my questions I'll post that thing you think is a dumptruck.
Instead, regarding the question of when the course actually opened for play, this series of dated (publication date) articles provide a pretty clear timeline.
May 25th, 1908
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7724/17463345719_dc101bbf0c_b.jpg)
January 22, 1910
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8783/17029709643_b4d131ee87_b.jpg)
May 10th, 1910
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7727/17461995458_82de2cb7d6_b.jpg)
July 3rd, 1910 (sorry it's such poor quality)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5460/17649895785_f1c5ecc297_b.jpg)
August, 1910
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7797/17463625989_4f8f07a32c_b.jpg)
-
Nice try Mike, but there were also reports and even photos of golfers playing the course in 1909.
And nothing you've posted addresses my point: Major construction of the golf course did not take 3.5 years as you keep implying. Most of that time they were trying to get grass to grow.
-
Also, Mike, I see that you are unfortunately back to your frustrating habit of posting articles without proper citations. From what publications did each of those snippets come?
-
Mike,
The January 1910 article talks of the course being playable and is discussing getting it into prime condition. Also, the 1908 article talks of the money already spent and golfers going out to visit the course.
I think David's assertion that the grass and conditioning were the issues is a better assumption.
-
Here is a photo of John Ward playing on the then 3rd green, published Oct. 23, 1909 in the NY Tribune.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/993253c5.jpg?t=1220510374)
On October 3, 1909 the same paper had published a photo of golfers playing the Alps hole (then the 12th.)
The frustrating thing is that we've been through this many times before, yet you still trot out the same points after they have been specifically disproven.
-
JC,
Yes, a grow - in is obviously part of any golf course construction project. I'm not sure why that isn't obvious?
And Macdonald did have issues getting grass to grow so likely he was near done with the shaping phase in and around the various August 1908 articles that discussed what had been accomplished to date, 20 months after acquiring the property.
Still, the course did not soft open til July 1910 and even then conditions were a bit rough.
My comment was in the context of your question about existing roads and access, etc. and the difference between Dec 1906 when Macdonald secured the land and 3.5 years later being a moving target in light of your original question of the roads in the immediate area.
-
David,
Why is it news that some members and friends hit balls around various holes that may have been ready sooner than others?
I have a few pics that show the state of conditions in late 1909 that I'll post tomorrow if you think it's newsworthy. That still has nothing to do with the overall course construction project from inception to opening in July 1910 that by definition includes the grow - in phase.
-
Pat,
Thanks for setting me straight when you wrote, "Phil, sorry, but, you don't know what you're talking about. Companies like Mack, Ford and International, the biggest names in trucks had trucks similar to the one Jim Kennedy posted. Mack Truck had a 7 ton dump truck in 1907, just the kind of truck that would be perfect for delivering loads of soil to NGLA."
Then again maybe its YOU who needs setting straight! ;D
Let's take a look at the "Trucks" that Mack was selling during the years 1904-1909, the years that trucks were "hauling dirt" according to you. They wouldn't have been hauling dirt in 1910, or if so just very little as the course was basically completed and was in the grtow-in phase.
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/1904%20mack_zpsqlo0aydn.jpg) (http://s364.photobucket.com/user/PhiltheAuthor/media/1904%20mack_zpsqlo0aydn.jpg.html)
A bit hard to carry dirt in that... Then there was the next one from 1906...
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/1906%20Mack_zpsa79m0ecy.jpg) (http://s364.photobucket.com/user/PhiltheAuthor/media/1906%20Mack_zpsa79m0ecy.jpg.html)
I think that truck wasn't made for hauling dirt...
You said that Mack had a "7-ton dump truck" in 1907? Not according to the history portion of their website... which is where these photographs come from...
Well then, what about Ford... What trucks were Ford manufacturing in 1907? The answer is NONE! The first truck of any type that Ford manufactured was the 1917 Model TT. It was named that because it used a Model T frame and body with a cab on the end of it. Here a photograph of the 1919 Model TT:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/1919%20Form%20Model%20TT_zpspna3hnmo.jpg) (http://s364.photobucket.com/user/PhiltheAuthor/media/1919%20Form%20Model%20TT_zpspna3hnmo.jpg.html)
Not only wouldn't it be made until 10 years after the dirt was hauled at NGLA, it, too, wasn't built to hold dirt in the back...
Finally, there's International. This is the only historical information shown on their website: "The merger of McCormick Harvesting Machine Company and the Deering Harvester Company in 1902 resulted in the formation of the International Harvester Company (IH) of Chicago, Illinois, which over the next three-quarters of a century evolved to become a diversified manufacturer of farming equipment, construction equipment, gas turbines, trucks, buses, and related components. During World War II, International Harvester produced the M-series of military trucks that served the Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy as weapons carriers, cargo transporters and light artillery movement. Today, Navistar produces International brand military vehicles through its affiliate Navistar Defense."
I can't imagine that they were creating trucks that were anymore advanced than Mack and their trucks certainly were not the type that you've imagined them to be.
Pat, my whole point with this was your insistence that the "good roads" mentioned in the article referred to a "highway system" when they clearly were talking only about some recently built, barely wide enough for two automobiles to pass each other, dirt roads.
The reason I think that is important is because it makes the accomplishment of building NGLA as much an engineering marvel as an golf course architectural one.
-
JC,
Related to the question of construction and grow in do you think MacDonald realized that some of the land was impoverished before or after he tried to grow grass on it?
Phil,
Nice stuff. however this is just another Patrick wild hair about nothing. McDonald never said a single word about trucks. Pat is still trying to advance a ridiculous theory that there was a major road system in place at the time McDonald discovered the property.
-
JC,
Yes, a grow - in is obviously part of any golf course construction project. I'm not sure why that isn't obvious?
And Macdonald did have issues getting grass to grow so likely he was near done with the shaping phase in and around the various August 1908 articles that discussed what had been accomplished to date, 20 months after acquiring the property.
Still, the course did not soft open til July 1910 and even then conditions were a bit rough.
My comment was in the context of your question about existing roads and access, etc. and the difference between Dec 1906 when Macdonald secured the land and 3.5 years later being a moving target in light of your original question of the roads in the immediate area.
Mike,
What are your thoughts? Do you think the majority of the dirt brought in would have been done so by 1908 as the shaping would have been done by then?
-
JC,
I honestly don't know. I think it would all depend upon the answer to the question I just asked you above. MacDonald talked about bringing in the soil in the context of the impoverishment of the land so it's hard to know if that was before or after the first attempt to grow grass.
-
Mike,
I think we asked each other just about the same question at the same time.
When he spoke of bringing in manure, that would not be to fill in swamps but rather, to grow plants. Likewise topsoil.
-
JC,
I have a bit more related I can share tomorrow, thanks.
-
Here's the 1907 Mack 7, took me 6 seconds to find it on GIS.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/art1_zpszroxevm0.jpg)
-
As to any initial plans to have the clubhouse out by Peconic Bay, the following excerpt from a larger article (posted before in other threads) adds some color. When the Shinnecock Inn burned down, the options were to rebuilt the "clubhouse" either near the location of the Inn (presuming that they would have had the ability to do so) or out by Peconic Bay. In either case, they were not set on either location, and presumedly CBM was not particularly tied to either version of the routing, seemingly willing to have the course start either on the 1st or the 10th.
New York Daily Tribune - Aug. 23, 1908
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-14%20at%208.47.58%20PM_zpsta1gv9ih.png)
-
Here's the 1907 Mack 7, took me 6 seconds to find it on GIS.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/art1_zpszroxevm0.jpg)
The picture is a print done in the 1960's, I believe. The artist labeled it 1907, but according to the Mack website they did not make a 7 ton dump truck. They did make a 7.5 ton one, but not until 1911-16. Their earliest dump truck of any size was 1908. Following is Mack's list of the early dump trucks they built, how many and when. Hopefully they are not in error about their own trucks.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5326/17040889463_c2633d7927_o.jpg)
-
Sven, I found the same thing, but I am not sure whether that is an actual truck or a artistic rendering of a model, and I am not sure the model is correctly dated.
I see Bryan helped clarify. They made a 5 ton dump truck beginning in 1908, a photo is in my link below. Other companies also made dumptrucks dating back to 1907 at least.
________________________________________________________
David,
Why is it news that some members and friends hit balls around various holes that may have been ready sooner than others?
Members and friends hit balls around various holes? Do you ever tire of shamelessly twisting and spinning the facts? Doesn't it get even a little embarrassing for you?
According to CBM (and various accounts) they "first played tentatively over the course" in 1909, from the regular tees at 6100 yards. The NY Tribune has photos of them golfing a number of other holes in addition to those mentioned above, including the Sahara (September 5, 1909) and the Road Hole (September 19, 1909).
CBM also mentioned in SG that they played an informal match play tournament over the course in 1909. W.T. Tuckerman beat Herreshoff in the finals of the first flight of eight, and CBM beat Robert Watson "one up" in the finals of the second flight of eight.
[This was not the same tournament as the well-publicized Invitational in July of 1910. In 1910 CBM played in the first flight, which was won by Herreshoff, and S.K. DeForrest of Shinnecock beat Frank Thomas in the finals of the second flight. Neither Tuckerman nor Watson played in the the second tournament. (I mention this because in Scottland's Gift, CBM mistakenly said that John Ward, who played in both tournaments, had shot a 74(!) in the 1909 tournament, when in reality he shot a 74 (with a 32(!!) on the current front nine) in the 1910 tournament.)]
So they weren't only golfing at NGLA in 1909, they even had a tournament.
Will you try to spin it as they were just hitting a balls around more various holes, or will you take CBM's word for it that they were golfing the course? You are shameless.
I have a few pics that show the state of conditions in late 1909 that I'll post tomorrow if you think it's newsworthy. That still has nothing to do with the overall course construction project from inception to opening in July 1910 that by definition includes the grow - in phase.
By your definition construction may include grow-in, but a more reasonable understanding is that sitting around waiting for grass to grow isn't the same thing as constructing the golf course, especially when the issue at hand involves actually working on the golf course with trucks and such.
You can make up your own definitions about what constitutes "construction" or "a soft opening," but if they are golfing on the course and even holding tournaments on a course, then it is misleading for you to repeatedly suggest that they were still in the throws of heavy construction.
___________________________________
As for JC's original question, According to CBM (and various accounts) they began to develop the property in the Spring of 1907. So they needed access roads onto the property at that point. (Contrary to Mike's suggestions there were already roads to the property.) If roads on the property did not yet exist, then they would have have to create them. All this nonsense about a 3.5 year construction period is just a distraction.
_____________________________________________________________
Same goes for the rest of this stuff about how there were no roads, dump trucks didn't exist, and not even dirt hauling trucks existed. They existed. Here again is a link to the January 1, 1909 journal article listing Manhattan's (Mack's) current offerings. Notice the Five Ton Dump Truck.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xq0yAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA168&dq=dumptruck&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VtJUVc78G4K9ggSbrIKoCw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=dump%20truck&f=false
Here is a link to a 1908 article about dump trucks (called "dumping wagons") which noted that "motor vehicles with dumping bodies are frequently built in this country and abroad, especially where bulk loads are to be handled." The article also mentions such vehicles are often custom built to specification for the type of the job.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZFIgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&dq=chase+dumping+wagons&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b2hVVcGNBa7isAS74IGQCQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Here is yet another article on a dump truck, this one from January 1908 spotlighting a dump truck (made in 1907) which had been customized to haul ash. (The same company also sold dump trucks for other purposes.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=A3dHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA130&dq=%22dumping+mechanism%22+springfield&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g2pVVfWLI4HHsQS3gYGYCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
There were also a bunch of different types of regular old trucks which were used for hauling dirt, manure, or anything else. [See Bryan's list, for example.]
I don't know whether at NGLA CBM used a wagon, a truck, a dump truck, or even a RR. But roads existed or could readily by built. Trucks existed. RR's existed. The arguments to the contrary are ridiculous.
[Edited on May 17 to correct name of runner-up in 1909 tourney from Travis to Herreshoff.]
-
(http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/media/images/2014/09/11/stroking_beard-yamo3v08q6mj43m2ti2_fct363x272x190_t460.jpg)
Have to admit, this is a pretty good thread.
-
Is that a picture of you, Jeff? You look different than when I last saw you. Wiser.
-
David,
Your posts are informative for me, as are Mike's. Do you suppose you could cut down on the scolding of Mike in every post? I understand you don't like or respect him. You don't have to reiterate it with every post. It's no big deal if he wants to think construction is from purchase to formal opening and you want to think of it as not including grass growing. It doesn't rate the continual scolding.
Re the dump truck thing, I'll just say that if CBM was using dump trucks in 1907-08 then he was a very early adopter. One wonders whether he contracted laborers and equipment and managed the construction or whether he contracted a construction company to undertake the build with his design? It seems unlikely he was buying dump trucks, or horses and wagons or rail cars. I also wonder where he got his 10,000 loads of soil. I suppose there were landscape supply companies in those days. Presumably it wasn't clean fill from other construction sites.
-
Is that a picture of you, Jeff? You look different than when I last saw you. Wiser.
Nope. A touch wiser now but can't resist an opportunity to insert a good beard pull pic.
And I meant what I said... This is a great thread.
-
Re the roads situation, I have crudely overlaid the 1904 topo onto the modern Google aerial and marked the improved roads in red and the unimproved around Sebonac Neck in orange. I also marked the location of the Shinnecock Inn. Looks like the SI site was surrounded by a triangle of unimproved dirt tracks in 1904. Presumably the developer hardened at least one of those tracks for automobile traffic when they built the Inn.
There were a number of tracks into the NGLA site that probably would have been sufficient, without improvement, for construction activities, at least in decent weather. I still wonder why there were those tracks up in the Neck in 1904 when there are no structures up there and nothing down to the north side of the tracks except for the SHGC clubhouse. Where did those tracks go to through the brambles and who would have used them. The supposedly better properties for cottages and beaches were all supposed to be south of the tracks.
What remains unanswered is where was the site CBM originally intended for his clubhouse near the Shinnecock Inn. It looks like there were dirt tracks that could have been improved right there to serve a clubhouse site. The new Shinnecock Inn was supposed to be electrified, so availability of electricity at that site might have been a consideration too.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
-
I'll play the rube here...
I've played NGLA 6 times (belt notch name drop there) so I know the basic land geography. Is the peconic bay deep enough for the "10,000" loads to be brought in by boat? Is there a bay or port close enough to the course for that method of delivery? I'm guessing I'm way off as that type of transport was probably either not available or too costly if my embarrassingly bad beard pull thought was even possible.
-
Jeff,
It was deep enough for Yachts, so I suppose barges could have approached. But they'd still need infrastructure, trucks, and some semblance of roads to get the soil onto the property.
But this whole roads/trucks/RR/boat discussion is a huge distraction. This wasn't "The Lost World." There was a road right to the Shinnecock Inn (and well beyond) at it was passable by truck or auto. And there was a RR, with a station right there. And there was some semblance of a road out onto the actual property, and these guys had the resources to finish it if need be. Accessing the property just wasn't as big a deal as some are making it out to be. As one of the descriptions mentioned, Huckleberry bushes aren't that hard to eradicate.
___________________________________________
Bryan,
If I "scolded" Mike it was because he is twisting the facts regarding what was happening at NGLA in 1909, which I think deserved comment. But I'll consider your request nonetheless. We all have our crosses to bear. I get pretty tired of wading through your banter with Patrick, too.
As for the roads, you should take a look at the auto club stuff from 1907 and 1908. It indicates that there was a northern route to the Shinnecock Inn, and that it was a pretty good road. Another indicates that the road by the Shinnecock Inn was relatively high quality. I think a lot may have changed from when that 1904 Atlas was created to 1907.
As for the location of the planned clubhouse. I have a vague recollection of George saying or writing that CBM lengthened the (current) 9th hole by moving the green back at some point. If I am remembering correctly and if George was correct, then this might have provided a bit more room.
-
As to any initial plans to have the clubhouse out by Peconic Bay, the following excerpt from a larger article (posted before in other threads) adds some color. When the Shinnecock Inn burned down, the options were to rebuilt the "clubhouse" either near the location of the Inn (presuming that they would have had the ability to do so) or out by Peconic Bay. In either case, they were not set on either location, and presumedly CBM was not particularly tied to either version of the routing, seemingly willing to have the course start either on the 1st or the 10th.
New York Daily Tribune - Aug. 23, 1908
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-14%20at%208.47.58%20PM_zpsta1gv9ih.png)
The use of the word "another" reads to me that the Shinnecock Inn was the first.
-
Sven & David,
Thank you for the correction...
-
As to any initial plans to have the clubhouse out by Peconic Bay, the following excerpt from a larger article (posted before in other threads) adds some color. When the Shinnecock Inn burned down, the options were to rebuilt the "clubhouse" either near the location of the Inn (presuming that they would have had the ability to do so) or out by Peconic Bay. In either case, they were not set on either location, and presumedly CBM was not particularly tied to either version of the routing, seemingly willing to have the course start either on the 1st or the 10th.
New York Daily Tribune - Aug. 23, 1908
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-14%20at%208.47.58%20PM_zpsta1gv9ih.png)
The use of the word "another" reads to me that the Shinnecock Inn was the first.
I don't think anyone is doubting that the plan was to use the Inn as a temporary clubhouse. What this article points out is that by Aug. 1908, they were not set on the location of where its replacement would go when built. Because of the fire, they had to address that question earlier than they intended.
Sven
-
Re the roads situation, I have crudely overlaid the 1904 topo onto the modern Google aerial and marked the improved roads in red and the unimproved around Sebonac Neck in orange. I also marked the location of the Shinnecock Inn. Looks like the SI site was surrounded by a triangle of unimproved dirt tracks in 1904. Presumably the developer hardened at least one of those tracks for automobile traffic when they built the Inn.
There were a number of tracks into the NGLA site that probably would have been sufficient, without improvement, for construction activities, at least in decent weather. I still wonder why there were those tracks up in the Neck in 1904 when there are no structures up there and nothing down to the north side of the tracks except for the SHGC clubhouse. Where did those tracks go to through the brambles and who would have used them. The supposedly better properties for cottages and beaches were all supposed to be south of the tracks.
What remains unanswered is where was the site CBM originally intended for his clubhouse near the Shinnecock Inn. It looks like there were dirt tracks that could have been improved right there to serve a clubhouse site. The new Shinnecock Inn was supposed to be electrified, so availability of electricity at that site might have been a consideration too.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
Bryan,
Thanks for providing that map.
I came upon this 1905 Automobile Club Map that is interesting to compare and contrast.
Interestingly, it doesn't appear to show any roads passable by automobile up into the NGLA property.
For reasons of my interest, it also doesn't show any roadways of signfiicance north of the railroad tracks going back to the Shinnecock Canal that would have negatively impacted CBM's first choice for his ideal golf course near there.
I think what fairly could be said, which I've tried to point out despite attempts to shout me down, is that this area was a work in progress, a "moving picture" between the years of 1905 when the Real Estate company bought the land, CBM's subsequent failed attempt to secure 120 acres, the securing of 200 acres of Sebonac Neck property in late 1906, and soft opening of the course in 1910.
Somewhat futilely, in my opinion, the discussion keeps getting sidetracked with silly things like what year the Dump Truck got invented (around 1907-08) and whether they would have been deployed, when Macdonald never mentioned using trucks in the first place.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7692/17652715096_af017845fc_b.jpg)
-
8) and animal or horse & buggy one & two-track trails aren't passable by automobiles??? You haven't been out in the woods lately eh?
-
Steve,
I'm pretty sure they didn't have SUV's back in 1907, but I'm sure someone will argue that as well. ;)
Seriously, my point is that there are no automobile roads at all shown on the 1905 Road Atlas going up into the land of Sebonac Neck through the NGLA property.
-
Brian, et.al.,
As regards the property boundaries, CBM's original blueprint shows different lines from that scorecard map, particularly behind today's 9th green. Here is a photo from Uncle George Bahto's (and Gib Papazian's) book, "The Evangelist of Golf". Sorry for the quality.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5325/17060285163_73c76c369e_b.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7669/17680812645_e24bcd7fec_b.jpg)
-
8) Hey Mike, not arguing, just noting that I've been on plenty of wild one and two track paths from new york to california and can easily see auto - truck or any "carrier" being able to traverse and get developed as more traffic is carried... from construction exposures, its amazing what the civil engineers can do and were doing in much more challenging locales that at a swampy area at the turn of the 20th century... running steam powered equipment and horse trains, and the new technology offerings of internal combustion engines..
carry on
-
As to any initial plans to have the clubhouse out by Peconic Bay, the following excerpt from a larger article (posted before in other threads) adds some color. When the Shinnecock Inn burned down, the options were to rebuilt the "clubhouse" either near the location of the Inn (presuming that they would have had the ability to do so) or out by Peconic Bay. In either case, they were not set on either location, and presumedly CBM was not particularly tied to either version of the routing, seemingly willing to have the course start either on the 1st or the 10th.
New York Daily Tribune - Aug. 23, 1908
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-14%20at%208.47.58%20PM_zpsta1gv9ih.png)
I don't think anyone is doubting that the plan was to use the Inn as a temporary clubhouse. What this article points out is that by Aug. 1908, they were not set on the location of where its replacement would go when built. Because of the fire, they had to address that question earlier than they intended.
Sven
Sven,
Thanks for that article, which should finally put to rest the pointless speculation as to whether CBM had "always" intended today's site for the NGLA clubhouse, which has veered off into further silliness regarding trucks (which Macdonald never mentioned) and the conditions of roadways in the area. I won't hold my breath however.
As regards the "road" leading up to today's clubhouse, perhaps Bernard Darwin can tell us more;
"At first the only access to the clubhouse was over an old, uncared-for, rough, rutted, and sandy road, over which the farmers of the former day had carted seaweed and sedge, when those things were considered valuable. The services of Mr. Seth J. Raynor were again called into requisition and he laid out a beautiful drive, which has been graded and oiled and placed in first class condition and now is ready access to the clubhouse at full speed over one of the best and pleasantest roads in the vicinity. What would those old seaweed haulers say if they should appear some day and see this road and the new, speedy vehicles that are used on it." - as reproduced in "The Evangelist of Golf"
-
Mike:
You're still making assumptions. The article does nothing to dispel the thought that CBM may have always intended the permanent clubhouse to be at the north end of the property at some point, especially when you consider the plans to have a yacht basin put in at that area.
It is possible he always wanted it to be up north, but logistics prevented them from committing to that location from the get go.
If anything, all this tells us is that he wasn't very concerned about the course starting on 1 or 10.
-
As regards the extended grow-in period, and what at least some of the imported soil was used for, I decided to go to the CBM "Bible", none of than Uncle George Bahto and Gib Papazian's "The Evangelist of Golf".
From pages 66-67, entitled "Disaster on the Greens" 1907-1908", I've posted relevant paragraphs below;
When Charles Macdonald began building the course in 1907, little was known about proper seed mixtures on putting greens - in particular about growing fine grass on the sandy soil such as at Southampton....
...Seed merchants at that time went by the principle that if many types of grass seed were incorporated into the blend, something was sure to grow. Consequently, the putting mixtures of the day were a blend of "every sort of seed, from fine fescue to rank meadow grass." Naturally, the coarsest grasses germinated first, eventually turning the planted areas into ugly, unmanageable clumps.
Macdonald, trusting the knowledge of the seed merchant, used this mixture for the first seeding - with disastrous results. Robert White, the eminent golf course architect and close friend of Macdonald wrote in 1914:
"At the end of the year's time the greens resembled cabbage patches. What grasses they contained grew in thick tufts with bare spaces between. Most of the National's greens had to be made all over again. Those that were not ploughed up had bad grass in them for several years afterward.
As a result of this debacle, according to White, the opening of the National was thrown back 18 months. Macdonald was flabbergasted. During the ensuing months, he initiated a thorough study and established an extensive turf nursery....
...He discovered there was far less loam in the sandy soil of Long Island than there was in similarly situated areas in Scotland and England....
...He reached two conclusions...
...First the soil had to be properly prepared. In order to preserve moisture in the turf, he had blocks of "meadow sod" turned into the ground. Limestone, with a quantity of sandy loam, was added to sweeten the soil....
...Because not all greens needed to be plowed under, there were originally several varieties of grass on some of the greens....
...After a year of battling the porous soil of Long Island, it was evident that a complete watering system would be needed. Out of this necessity, Macdonald designed and installed America's first golf course irrigation system; one capable of delivering 300 gallons per minute to the putting greens and approach areas. The gravity fed water was delivered from a tower between the 2nd and 16th greens - now the site of the landmark windmill.
In January of 1910, this snippet from a Harper's Weekly article talks more about the irrigation system and how the greens were finally prepared;
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8767/17493620628_86bfd41ecb_b.jpg)
Anyone who doesn't think this entire project involved major construction on multiple levels over several years is simply arguing for the sake of argument.
-
Mike:
You're still making assumptions. The article does nothing to dispel the thought that CBM may have always intended the permanent clubhouse to be at the north end of the property at some point, especially when you consider the plans to have a yacht basin put in at that area.
It is possible he always wanted it to be up north, but logistics prevented them from committing to that location from the get go.
If anything, all this tells us is that he wasn't very concerned about the course starting on 1 or 10.
Sven,
If both sites were still being considered viable in August of 1908, as in "either at the present site or over nearer the Peconic side.", how could Macdonald have "always" intended the present site to be his clubhouse?
-
As to any initial plans to have the clubhouse out by Peconic Bay, the following excerpt from a larger article (posted before in other threads) adds some color. When the Shinnecock Inn burned down, the options were to rebuilt the "clubhouse" either near the location of the Inn (presuming that they would have had the ability to do so) or out by Peconic Bay. In either case, they were not set on either location, and presumedly CBM was not particularly tied to either version of the routing, seemingly willing to have the course start either on the 1st or the 10th.
New York Daily Tribune - Aug. 23, 1908
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-14%20at%208.47.58%20PM_zpsta1gv9ih.png)
The use of the word "another" reads to me that the Shinnecock Inn was the first.
I don't think anyone is doubting that the plan was to use the Inn as a temporary clubhouse. What this article points out is that by Aug. 1908, they were not set on the location of where its replacement would go when built. Because of the fire, they had to address that question earlier than they intended.
Sven
I agree. In fact, the article's mention of building one on a site nearer the Peconic side suggests contemplation of the site where the current clubhouse sits. Though, it does not necessarily "prove" that as the plan all along.
-
Regarding some of the members playing/trying out the course sometime in 1909 before the official "Soft Opening" in July 1910, I'm not sure how this is either uncommon or surprising? The golf course certainly wasn't completed at that point...in fact, it was an "improvised" golf course. Here's what Macdonald said about that in "Scotland's Gift";
"It was not until 1909 that some twenty friends played over the
course in an improvised condition, our club-house a tent. The
course was very rough and, as I have said, distinctly shorter than it
is now.."
That's what we're arguing about? Seriously?? ::)
-
Sven and Mike,
Thanks for those two points of information. I think the blueprint has the accurate property line, whereas the earlier graphci was truncated simply to fit a certain sheet size. Having left a large site for the clubhouse next to the Inn 99% proves that was plan A in CBM's mind. All the planning was left to him, but of course, his members and founders were around by the fire, and obviously, some probably lobbied for the current site. We can't know how strongly in favor of it CBM was, other than the fact that it ended up that way.
Interesting notion on the 9th having been lengthened. The stick drawing shows 9G and 10T aligned, but it is a newspaper graphic. The site plan graphic shown often actually has the 9th beyond the 10th tee, and that was a very early version of the plan, which makes it seem as if it was there from nearly the beginning.
Thanks for all the truck info. Brings to mind a childhood moment when my brother and I - both interested in trains - sort of sneered at another kid at the magazine rack who was perusing "truck world" (may have been "bus world", but in either case, we felt vastly superior to him and his "nerd" interests. LOL.
It will be interesting to see if Patrick still provides his NGLA "evidence", and to see how it compares to the original working blueprint, property line wise.
-
David,
Your posts are informative for me, as are Mike's. Do you suppose you could cut down on the scolding of Mike in every post? I understand you don't like or respect him. You don't have to reiterate it with every post. It's no big deal if he wants to think construction is from purchase to formal opening and you want to think of it as not including grass growing. It doesn't rate the continual scolding.
Bryan,
Thanks, but that's ok. Nice to see David is going to "consider" your request. ::) :D
When I came back to this forum based on some of the great research I was seeing from Sven and Jim Kennedy and you and Joe Bausch, as well as Ran's January dictate to have this site focused more on golf course architecture, golf's most beloved gentleman told me to simply "have fun".
I was hopeful that everyone here had moved along after several years from past grievances but quickly learned differently. Since my return, I have been followed around on virtually every thread I post on followed (usually within less than an hour, sometimes less than 5 minutes) by an insulting, argumentative retort from David Moriarty. To be honest, in the few months I've been back I'm not sure if David has posted on any other thread except one's with my involvement.
I've tried to ignore him at first, but then was accused of ignoring his questions. I tried civil discussion and have avoided the trap of getting into hurling personal insults back at him as some have urged me. Others have gone to Ran and have urged me to, as well, but I figure he has more important things to do than referee this site. Here's one comment sent to Ran;
Date: 04/22/2015 1:37 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Ran Morrissett <rmorrissett@cabotlinks.com>
Subject: Reported post: Re: Early Golf Pros who designed courses and supervised construction - Part Deux by DMoriarty
The following post, "Re: Early Golf Pros who designed courses and supervised construction - Part Deux" by DMoriarty has been reported by XXXXXXXXX on a board you moderate:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=60895.msg1444313#msg1444313
The reporter has made the following comment:
this is getting silly. After every Cirba quote, this guy has to make some snide remark. Enough already.
Regards,
The Golf Club Atlas Team.
The sad part is that I value David's research and share his obvious interest in historical materials even if we often don't often agree on how best to accurately analyze those materials from a historical perspective.
At this stage, I'm not sure how to proceed except to continue to try and participate on topics of interest and trust that others will see my intent is positive and my materials are factual. I'm certainly not going to worry too much about this, nor will I let one apple spoil the bunch here. If this is how David chooses to spend his life, that's his business, but he truly shouldn't behave like this and then expect me to engage with him further.
I did see this the other day and I had to chuckle. I think we all can get a bit like this at times but I think David's behavior is beyond ridiculous and counter-productive. Thanks for trying.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8721/17681507585_4faa924972_b.jpg)
-
Mike, is the above what you have in mind when you say you are just here trying to positively contribute the conversation? Is being passive-aggressive somehow superior in your mind to being direct?
-
Mike, I'll try to keep my frustration with your methodology down to a minimum, but it is very difficult when you misrepresent the source material at every turn. I'll start with your most recent "factual" claims.
Regarding some of the members playing/trying out the course sometime in 1909 before the official "Soft Opening" in July 1910, I'm not sure how this is either uncommon or surprising? The golf course certainly wasn't completed at that point...in fact, it was an "improvised" golf course. Here's what Macdonald said about that in "Scotland's Gift";
"It was not until 1909 that some twenty friends played over the
course in an improvised condition, our club-house a tent. The
course was very rough and, as I have said, distinctly shorter than it
is now.."
That's what we're arguing about? Seriously?? ::)
1. That is NOT what CBM said. What he actually said was " . . some twenty friends played over the course in an improvised competition." Not in an improvised condition, and NOT on an "'improvised' golf course" as you claim. There is a big difference between an improvised competition and an "'improvised' golf course."
2. Your representation that this was not the real course because it had been shortened and "improvised" is false. According to CBM, the course they played over in 1909 was 6100 yards, which is consistent with his original plans for the course.
3. You quote and capitalize the phrase "Soft Opening" which creates the impression that this event was actually called the "Soft Opening." I don't recall seeing that terminology. Could you provide us the direct quote? Or if their is none, could you please quit offering up this specific terminology as if it more than just your interpretation? Thanks.
4. In the past (at all times before today, in fact) you've taken the position that the improvised tournament described in Scotland's Gift actually took place in 1910 (not 1909) and that this was the so-called soft opening. Now that you have finally accepted the 1909 date as correct, why are changing your mind on the importance of this early tournament? Except for the bit about Ward's score, CBM's description is remains the same.
-
Mike,
Thanks for posting the blueprint.
Here is the boundary from the blueprint overlaid in yellow at the southern end of the property.
Looks like more room behind the 9th green for a clubhouse that would have been near the Shinnecock Inn. And the unimproved track on the 1904 topo would have passed right by the end. Now, if only we were sure that the blueprint is correct. ;)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8894/17688538505_0e21f1945b_c.jpg)
-
Just out of curiosity, what is "The Golf Club Atlas Team" and who is on it?
-
Jeff, It is apparently a highly specialized team of former and current members set up in large part to monitor and critique my posts. I hear they have quite a behind-the-scenes email thread, and I get the occassional bizarre and threatening email from their creepy ringleader reminding me of this. If you want in on the fun I can try to pull some strings and get you in, but I am not sure I have much pull.
___________________________________________________________
Can someone help me interpret the original blue print from ToG? I see plenty of golf features but I cannot find where they mythical 90 acres of real estate has been set aside for the founders? Can someone point to where the supposed homesites were available? Because it looks almost as if that wasn't really CBM's intent.
-
David,
You are creating a straw horse to continue an argument. Everyone knows there was never a formal land plan of 1.5Ac lots.
The only questions are how serious he was about it, and when the idea fell by the wayside. No point in bringing it up for the umpteenth time, is there?
-
We know from many accounts that the land Macdonald secured in December of 1905 was completely overgrown with various waist-high growth at the time he discovered it, such that it was only passable on horseback. Earlier I asked if folks thought that the land of NGLA was cleared of this debris prior to Macdonald securing the land or after.
Given what sounds below to be quite the significant effort requiring considerable manpower, and all of the associated expense, I have to believe that it was cleared after Macdonald secured the land. Would anyone disagree? After all, why would he go to such a large effort and expenditure on land where he had no financial control? Would the landowner even permit it without a deal in hand?
My interest in this area relates to the golf course planning and routing process as well as what was possible to do at each stage of NGLA’s architectural development and subsequent construction and when. Frankly, it’s a fascinating topic.
In a 1906 article in Outing Magazine, Macdonald described how important it was to find the right sort of soil and landforms and felt that was half the battle;
Studying the above qualities in detail, there can be but one
opinion as to the nature of the soil the course should be built upon,
as well as the contour of the surface of the fairway green-running
as this should in more or less gentle undulations as at St. Andrews,
breaking in hillocks in a few places, more or less bold in certain
parts as at Sandwich and North Berwick.
The three courses above mentioned fulfill the ideal in this respect.
There can be no really first class golf course without such
material to work upon. Securing such a course is really more than
half the battle…Having the material in hand to work upon, the
completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience,
gardening and mathematics.
Here’s Macdonald in December of 1906 the day he secured the land describing what lies ahead in coming months.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/17690566125_31fcd27e73_b.jpg)
This snippet from an article in Harper’s Weekly in January 1910 describes how the land was cleared and what events preceded that clearing. It also retrospectively discusses how much effort Macdonald had to put into his agronomic efforts at growing turfgrass.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8823/17066991564_e0cf4cf767_b.jpg)
Finally, here’s Macdonald summarizing those efforts over 20 years later in “Scotland’s Gift”
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5323/17690969681_8f74308e08_b.jpg)
Read and understood in the proper context, it’s interesting to see the nuances of the developing story at each point in time.
Have a great weekend, everyone.
-
David,
You are creating a straw horse to continue an argument. Everyone knows there was never a formal land plan of 1.5Ac lots.
The only questions are how serious he was about it, and when the idea fell by the wayside. No point in bringing it up for the umpteenth time, is there?
Am I? Mike has been arguing throughout that at the time he secured the land in December 1906, CBM was planning on using 90+ acres for housing lots for the Founders. Here is what Mike said on the topic in his post No. 98, (his emphasis, not mine):
And yes, that particular article seems taken directly from the wording of CBM's solicitation letter to the Founders that he originally distributed in 1904. All this really tells us is that nothing at all had changed from CBM's original plan to purchase 200 or so acres of which he estimated needing about 110 acres for golf and the rest for housing lots available to the Founders. His plans changed after this, either during the routing or construction processes. I really don't believe that CBM was simply luring in investors with promises of golf course real estate if he never intended it in the first place. No, instead it's quite clear that the original golf course/real estate plan was still in place when the land was originally secured in late 1906 and only changed subsequently, and thankfully.
So Mike, at least, believes that "the original golf course/real estate plan was still in place" (whatever that means) and that CBM was planning on using "about 110 acres for golf and the rest for housing lots available to the Founders." His words, not mine.
While you and I may agree that it is ridiculous to think that CBM intended 90 acres of lots on that property, Mike disagrees, and so the issue is very much not a red herring.
In December 1906, CBM and many others had already been over the land carefully and had told us quite a lot about the routing itself. So where did the 90 acres of housing fit in?
-
David,
You could have chosen to highlight Mike's words, "His plans changed after this, either during the routing or construction processes" rather than ignore them and wrongly interpret for the world that he still believed the original plan of 110 acres is intact, when in fact he doesn't say what you repeatedly tell us he says.
As I have said before, we are on page 14, perhaps half devoted to your contention that CBM NEVER intended to leave any left over land for Founders, vs. our contention that it was an idea still in place, of lower priority than the golf course and thus reduced to the point of essentially being discarded. And again, the semantics of "never" and "quickly reduced/discarded/eventually didn't pan out" is not worth arguing that much about.
We know what you mean, you know what we mean, and we all know what the record says and what ended up on the ground.
There really isn't any reason for this thread anymore, unless Pat is going to produce what appears to be some erroneous info he got from NGLA regarding how much land was available beyond 9 green for the original clubhouse location so we can have a clearer idea of where the original clubhouse was intended. Or, if anyone wants to discuss the original premise that somehow, the out and back routing was a "concession" (whatever that means) to early UK courses. I know it doesn't mean "homage" because he corrected me on that one...... ;)
-
I'm afraid I don't follow, Jeff. According to Mike, as of mid December 1906 the plan for 90+ Acres of housing for the Founders was still intact. Read what he wrote. He told us exactly what I said he told us.
As for your second paragraph, you've misrepresented my position. I have always maintained that the founders would control any left-over land! The question has always been, as of Mid-dec 1906, whether CBM was planning a large scale real estate component.
It doesn't advance the conversation for you to ignore Mike's words while at the same time mischaractizing mine.
-
Just out of curiosity, what is "The Golf Club Atlas Team" and who is on it?
As a counterpoint to David's (presumably) facetious response, I think it works like this. Every post has a "report to moderator" button where anybody can report a posting as being inappropriate in some way. You can add comments on why you're reporting the post. That report to the moderator gets picked up by the hosting company and apparently they send an email to Ran with the report and comments. "The Golf Club Atlas Team" are the senders of the email to Ran that Mike posted. I suspect they are the support team at the web hosting company and are just forwarding the report to moderator to Ran. Part of the service the company provides.
-
...............................
___________________________________________________________
Can someone help me interpret the original blue print from ToG? I see plenty of golf features but I cannot find where they mythical 90 acres of real estate has been set aside for the founders? Can someone point to where the supposed homesites were available? Because it looks almost as if that wasn't really CBM's intent.
Was this a serious question or just a taunt directed to Mike and Jeff?
Do you have a date for the blueprint? Presumably by then CBM knew he had some surplus land but not 90 acres surplus by the time the blueprint was done, if not before. Do you think the blueprint was done pre-purchase; after the end of the 5 months of detail planning over the winter of 06-07; or somewhere in that 5 months?
Apart from when CBM knew he didn't have 90 acres surplus, when do you suppose he told the founders? Being the rich elite of the time I suspect they didn't care one way or the other about 1.5 acres off the edge of the world in the deserted Sebonac Neck, so maybe he didn't leap to tell them. Apparently the press was never told that the 1.5 acre thing was moot, or at least they didn't report it.
-
At some point in the final routing, detail hole planning, and/or construction phases Macdonald used more land for golf than he originally estimated and the course is better for it. That was all after Dec 1906 when he secured 200 acres of overgrown swampland on Sebonac Neck..
There is no evidence at all that he changed his mind about offering building lots for the Founders before then and plenty of evidence that it was still part of the plan.
I do think we've learned a lot on this thread.
Jeff, do you think that blueprint was used to guide construction or is more an as-built. I know Macdonald told us they would be making scale models to guide construction.
-
Mike,
My impression is that it was a guide to construction, as that is what blue prints were usually for, as opposed to the black line print of some of the newspaper graphics. Of course, I could be wrong.
David,
I am not sure why you don't follow. It appears you strongly believe that CBM knew he would have no real estate left over by that Dec 1906 announcement while we think it was still in his plans, as this was mostly pre-design, certainly pre-construction.
Or, you have some heartburn over some exact wording, such as believing we believe he would have a real subdivision plan in place for sale to others that would show on a map like a subdivision plan, which would not have happened until the end, IMHO.
We all agree the extra land, whatever was left, was for the Founders. You seem to believe that "suggestion" for housing was only that. We believe it was the plan (what else would they use the land for?) but got lost in the shuffle of other priorities.
I can't say it any simpler, and Mike has articulated it as well. You have said (and Mike notes above) that we don't have any of the interim correspondence between CBM and Founders. In other matters, it seems you would say the most logical interpretation would be that nothing changed unless it was noted in the record, but in this case, you believe that in absence of any documentation, surely it changed on a date before purchase. And that seems to be based on final results, which we all agree contained no lots for Founders. (In fact, the open land he left now seems to be the maintenance area)
This despite the fact that CBM later says the idea of having extra land "proved to be true." So, maybe you are hung up on the idea that Mike believes the 90 acres was "cast in stone?" Because he isn't.......
Again, we aren't really saying that much different, if we are, it can't be proven by the record, and constantly posting slight differences of opinion between you and Mike is starting to sound silly. We just can't know exactly how the 90 acres morphed down, although I think we all agree it was mostly because the golf course had first priority.
-
8) Beyond Silly!
I'm surprised you guys aren't arguing about who burned down the Inn and profited!! ::)
-
8) Beyond Silly!
I'm surprised you guys aren't arguing about who burned down the Inn and profited!! ::)
What? You think it a coincidence that CBM always wanted his clubhouse out on the bluff, and then the de facto clubhouse just happened to burn down . . . Or perhaps the economic conditions after the Panic of 1907 had something to do with it . . .
Give us twenty more pages . . . we'll get there.
-
Jeff,
I've acknowledged to you throughout that your position and my position are not that far apart (see for example our exchange at around posts 70 and 70 for example) but Mike's position has consistently been much more extreme than your position. He has been arguing throughout that as of mid-December 1906, after having gone carefully over the land for months, after having a number of others go over the land, and after having already told the world about significant aspects of the course routing, that CBM still intended to use the land for a 110 acre golf course 90+ acres of residential lots. (Or if you don't want to use 90 acres, then a portion large enough for 60 building lots.)
Read what he just wrote. No evidence that CBM had changed his mind before then? Plenty of evidence that it is still part of the plan?
Do you agree with Mike that there was no evidence, as of mid-December 1906, that CBM had changed his mind about including 60 residential building lots fit for the millionaire Founders? If so, then given what CBM had already told us about the golf course, where would these 60 lots fit?
Do agree that there is plenty of evidence that, as of mid-December 1906, that CBM still planned to sub-divide the parcel into 60 residential building lots? If so, then what specifically is this evidence? What if anything did CBM say in 1906 that indicated that 60 large residential lots were still part of his plan?
________________________________________________
Mike, Any chance you will list out, in brief bullet point form, the "plenty of evidence" that makes you so sure that, in mid-Dec. 1908, CBM was still planning on subdividing the property into a golf course and 60 large residential lots for the Founders?
-
Just out of curiosity, what is "The Golf Club Atlas Team" and who is on it?
As a counterpoint to David's (presumably) facetious response, I think it works like this. Every post has a "report to moderator" button where anybody can report a posting as being inappropriate in some way. You can add comments on why you're reporting the post. That report to the moderator gets picked up by the hosting company and apparently they send an email to Ran with the report and comments. "The Golf Club Atlas Team" are the senders of the email to Ran that Mike posted. I suspect they are the support team at the web hosting company and are just forwarding the report to moderator to Ran. Part of the service the company provides.
That sounds logical. Follow up question... How does Mike Cirba have access to "Report to Moderator" complaints that are forwarded by a neutral web hosting/complaint center?
Sounds more like to me that it is an independent group of contributors here that have coined themselves the "Golf Club Atlas Team". If so, the name seems to assume a certain "we are the important and loyal people here" feel. I could be completely wrong and maybe this is a "team" selected by Ran to give their consensus views on posters behavior here. But, it does seem odd that Mike Cirba would have access to a formal complaint email sent to Ran unless he were a moderator.
-
Jeff F., I was being somewhat facetious in my previous response. After looking at the email more closely, I think the email Mike posted was one automatically generated by the site host by use of the "report to moderator" function, and the "The Golf Atlas Team" is nothing but the automatic signature line in that email report. Ran must have wanted to follow up on the complaint and he must have forwarded the message to whoever he emailed. Ran certainly did not contact me about the complaint, although I did notice that one extremely innocuous post of mine got deleted on an Oakmont thread. The message and complaint have nothing to do with this thread, or NGLA. Mike just thought he'd share some snippet of a private conversation here so as to prove that some anonymous person complained about me on some past thread.
I do get extremely frustrated with Mike's positions, because I feel that they are very often disingenuous and unsound, and this has been ongoing for years. I'll try to temper my tone, but I won't stop pointing out what I consider to be the flaws in his positions.
-
Jeff,
That email to Ran was forwarded to me by the person who complained and yes, Ran agreed and deleted the comment.
The reason David uses words like "disengenuous" to call into question my motives and character is because he has no facts or evidence of his own here to argue with as others have pointed out. I trust others here can see that fairly obviously.
Patrick often uses the same tactic but Pat is an equal opportunity offender who at least has a sense of humor and Pat is not mean spirited at heart. Major difference to me.
-
Mike,
A few days ago you claimed that in 1909 CBM, and others were only golfing at NGLA by dropping balls and playing a few holes which were ready before the rest ("some members and friends hit balls around various holes that may have been ready sooner than others.") Yesterday you claimed that they were only golfing over an "improvised golf course" in 1909, and you misquoted CBM as so saying.
The reality is that CBM did not say what you claimed. Rather, CBM indicated that, while the conditions were rough, they were playing over the 6100 yard course in 1909, and that he even hosted an "improvised competition" with about twenty competitors.
That is evidence of the type of "disingenuousness" I perceive in your posts. I guess in fairness I should acknowledge that, in the alternative, maybe that you are being genuine but you are just really bad at this. Either way it is more than a little frustrating after all these years.
-
Thanks for clarification to all. Now let's get back to burned down hotels, dump trucks, hand rail, and road maps from 1905.
-
Bryan,
My question regarding the blueprint was serious, although also somewhat rhetorical. I don't think that anyone actually considering the property could reasonably believe that CBM intended 90 acres of lots of that property, and whenever it was actually created, the blue print gives us a glimpse into the planning process. So, I am asking, if CBM planned on sub-dividing the property into a 60 large building lots for the Founders (in addition to golf course) then where on the property would these lots fit? And what would be left for the golf course?
Do you have a date for the blueprint?
I don't have a date for the blueprint. My best guess would be pre-construction 1907. There are center line numbers which are unfortunately indecipherable. They could be yardages, but since they don't seem to be in uniform gaps from hole-to-hole I wonder if they are elevations. It least one early course description contained center-line elevation changes, and seeing those center-line figures makes me wonder if there is some connection.
Presumably by then CBM knew he had some surplus land but not 90 acres surplus by the time the blueprint was done, if not before. Do you think the blueprint was done pre-purchase; after the end of the 5 months of detail planning over the winter of 06-07; or somewhere in that 5 months?
I think it was quite obvious that he knew there was no room to divide up land into 60 building lots for founders by the time the blueprint was created. I think the more pertinent question is, when was the course being planned? The various press accounts and CBM quotes indicate that planning process was already well under way (but not yet completed) by mid-December 1906. CBM had already told us about the location of four famous (or soon to be famous) holes, the location and general dimensions of the course, the quarter-mile frontage on Peconic Bay, the one mile frontage on Bulls Head Bay, the approximate location of the first and last holes, the types of other holes he wanted to build, etc. He also told us that the property purchase would be tailored to the needs of the final, detailed plan for the golf course. In short, even at this point, there was no room for 90 acres of building lots for 60 millionaires.
As for the date that final, detailed routing was complete (like the one depicted on the blueprint,) it seems to have been sometime the spring of 1907, at the latest. CBM indicated he would complete the detailed plan before the purchase, and by early May 1907 (May 4, 1907 NY Evening post, IIRC), HJW offered a detailed description of much of the course, including exact yardages and hole numbers for a number of the holes.
So, as for the 90 acres of surplus land and the 1.5 acre lots, I do not think that had anything directly to do with the NGLA property.
- The description to which you are referring was from a hypothetical in original version of the Solicitation Letter/Agreement, authored by CBM in 1904.
- Presumably, CBM included a copy of the 1904 Agreement when he sent out his Notice That Payment was Due pursuant to this Agreement in December 1906. In the version of the Agreement reprinted in Scotland's Gift, all of the language about the real estate scheme was not included.
- The newspapers picked up on the language in the 1904 Agreement and presumed (mistakenly, I believe) that this was what CBM actually intended to do at NGLA.
- None of the extensive CBM and HJW quotes in the December 1906 articles mention a plan to divvy up the property into 60 lots for the founders.
So I don't think, on this particular site, that CBM ever intended to divvy 90 acres of land between the Founders (just as he never intended to divvy up land for the founders from the previous 120 Acre property he tried to purchase.)
To try and answer your last question, I don't think the Founders ever had any expectation of receiving 1.5 Acre lots on this property, but if they did, their expectations were inconsistent with CBM's intentions. The founders likely new that CBM had purchased the property from a huge, well-publicized development specializing in large, high end, building sites, but if they didn't then CBM told them that building sites were available.
-
My short synopsis of the Mike - David building lots debate as best I can understand it (which is not well):
David - CBM had plenty of time to study and plan the property before he bought it and therefore knew before he bought it in 1906 that the course would take more than 110 acres and that therefore there would be no 90 acres left over for the Founders.
Mike - the Founders Agreement was part of the "press release" (or whatever precipitated the newspaper stories) in December 1906, so CBM hadn't figured out yet that there wasn't going to be 90 acres available for the Founders.
Neither protangonist has factual evidence of what CBM knew when, so it's a debate of opinions.
There, that ought to be good for a few more pages of debate about whether this synopsis is a shameful misrepresentation of their positions or not. ::)
-
Bryan, That synopsis is very similar to what I posted in post 126, which was my attempt to highlight the pertinent issue in dispute, but my post was largely ignored. Here again is the pertinent part:
It occurs to me that perhaps all of this back and forth comes down to one issue, and it is one that has haunted these "discussions" for years:
When CBM agreed to purchase the NGLA land, did he already have a general idea of how his golf course would fit on that land, or not?
- If you believe he did have at least a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land before he secured the property, then it is impossible to believe that CBM intended to include a large housing component on the land, because there simply was no place for it.
- If you don't believe he had at least a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land before he secured the property, then you open up the possibility that he originally intended to use a large chunk of land for housing, but that somewhere during the process the realities of the actual site got in the way.
Is that a fair assessment of the fundamental difference of opinion here?
-
So, Bryan, as you can guess by the above I agree with your assessment. Where I disagree is with your statement, "Neither protangonist has factual evidence of what CBM knew when, so it's a debate of opinions."
We actually know quite a lot about what CBM was thinking by December 1906 because he had told us quite a lot about what he was intending to do with the property. And what he actually did on the property in the months that follow is further evidence of what he intended to do.
-
Bryan,
My question regarding the blueprint was serious, although also somewhat rhetorical. I don't think that anyone actually considering the property could reasonably believe that CBM intended 90 acres of lots of that property, and whenever it was actually created, the blue print gives us a glimpse into the planning process. So, I am asking, if CBM planned on sub-dividing the property into a 60 large building lots for the Founders (in addition to golf course) then where on the property would these lots fit? And what would be left for the golf course?
More rhetorical than serious to me. You're beating a dead horse here. Nobody disagrees that the course as built on the 205 acre property did not leave 90 acres left over for the Founders. You think knew before he purchased it and Mike thinks it's after.
Do you have a date for the blueprint?
I don't have a date for the blueprint. My best guess would be pre-construction 1907. There are center line numbers which are unfortunately indecipherable. They could be yardages, but since they don't seem to be in uniform gaps from hole-to-hole I wonder if they are elevations. It least one early course description contained center-line elevation changes, and seeing those center-line figures makes me wonder if there is some connection.
George Bahto reported that the blueprint had no date on it and it evidently was somewhat deteriorated. He also wrote that the numbers were most likely elevations.
Presumably by then CBM knew he had some surplus land but not 90 acres surplus by the time the blueprint was done, if not before. Do you think the blueprint was done pre-purchase; after the end of the 5 months of detail planning over the winter of 06-07; or somewhere in that 5 months?
I think it was quite obvious that he knew there was no room to divide up land into 60 building lots for founders by the time the blueprint was created. I think the more pertinent question is, when was the course being planned? The various press accounts and CBM quotes indicate that planning process was already well under way (but not yet completed) by mid-December 1906. CBM had already told us about the location of four famous (or soon to be famous) holes, the location and general dimensions of the course, the quarter-mile frontage on Peconic Bay, the one mile frontage on Bulls Head Bay, the approximate location of the first and last holes, the types of other holes he wanted to build, etc. He also told us that the property purchase would be tailored to the needs of the final, detailed plan for the golf course. In short, even at this point, there was no room for 90 acres of building lots for 60 millionaires.
I doubt anybody would disagree with your first statement. Yes, there was some planning before the purchase and apparently 5 more months of detail planning after purchase. You draw an inference that CBM knew he didn't have the 90 acres available when he bought the property. That's your opinion and certainly possible or even probable, but it is not a fact. We don't know for certain when he knew.
As for the date that final, detailed routing was complete (like the one depicted on the blueprint,) it seems to have been sometime the spring of 1907, at the latest. CBM indicated he would complete the detailed plan before the purchase, and by early May 1907 (May 4, 1907 NY Evening post, IIRC), HJW offered a detailed description of much of the course, including exact yardages and hole numbers for a number of the holes.
So, as for the 90 acres of surplus land and the 1.5 acre lots, I do not think that had anything directly to do with the NGLA property.
- The description to which you are referring was from a hypothetical in original version of the Solicitation Letter/Agreement, authored by CBM in 1904.
- Presumably, CBM included a copy of the 1904 Agreement when he sent out his Notice That Payment was Due pursuant to this Agreement in December 1906. In the version of the Agreement reprinted in Scotland's Gift, all of the language about the real estate scheme was not included.
- The newspapers picked up on the language in the 1904 Agreement and presumed (mistakenly, I believe) that this was what CBM actually intended to do at NGLA.
- None of the extensive CBM and HJW quotes in the December 1906 articles mention a plan to divvy up the property into 60 lots for the founders.
So I don't think, on this particular site, that CBM ever intended to divvy 90 acres of land between the Founders (just as he never intended to divvy up land for the founders from the previous 120 Acre property he tried to purchase.)
I agree that on this property with the course he designed and built there was no room for the Founders lots. When he knew that there wasn't enough left over can still only be inferred. I haven't seen any factual evidence either way as to when CBM knew.
To try and answer your last question, I don't think the Founders ever had any expectation of receiving 1.5 Acre lots on this property, but if they did, their expectations were inconsistent with CBM's intentions. The founders likely new that CBM had purchased the property from a huge, well-publicized development specializing in large, high end, building sites, but if they didn't then CBM told them that building sites were available.
Why did CBM include this inducement in the solicitation if he didn't intend it or the Founders didn't expect it to be fulfilled? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
-
Macdonald ' s plan for years was to buy 200 acres on Long Island, estimating 110 needed for course and the rest for Founders lots.
If he secured 185 acres, or 224 acres, or 157 acres in Dec 1906 instead of 200 acres I'd certainly be inclined to agree with David's interpretation of events but I don't believe the number was coincidence when next day newspapers all reported the cottage component. And yes, I know he eventually purchased 205 acres around July 1907 but forget where and why he added to his purchase. ..perhaps Pat can ask during his next seance. ;)
-
David,
I will try it a different way, and hope I have the general timeline right.
1904- conceives ideal golf course plan
1905 - offer rejected on land near canal, totaling 120 acres for golf
1906 (Fall, if I recall) - Tours future NGLA property for 3 days, determines its what he wants, picks out some of the holes.
Dec. 1906 - Announces purchase agreement. Agreement allows him to select any 205 that suits him and gives him 3 months to finalize details.
May 1907 - Approximate on the 3 month timeline, Travers and others announce the final plan is complete.
Late 1907-8 Construction begins.
My take is that in January-March 1907,
CBM and committee finalized the routing.
They then told a surveyor to mark the boundaries, perhaps 150 feet off the proposed centerlines they had staked out.
That came out to more like 180 acres over 110 acres.
CBM may have considered reducing the golf course, but it was more important than the leftover land, so he kept it as designed.
He then allocated the remaining 25 acres to hit the 205 total contracted for near current 17 for Founders land. Is it any coincidence that it is on an existing (albeit then unimproved) road with some water view, which would be best for lots?
He may have contacted some founders, we do not know, but he obviously felt comfortable with a much reduced Founders parcel.
So, my take is similar to Mikes, in that the 90 acres fell apart during and after design, not before the purchase. We can't know if he had some idea before hand, but we do know he addressed the fact that there would be some left over land, and this proved to be true, to be used at the Founders discretion.
In some ways, this recalls the Merion debate, in which you seemed pretty certain that CBM had routed the course after a quick visit in June, despite writings saying otherwise. I believe in both cases, finalizing the routing simply took more time than you imagine. I don't believe the routing was completed prior to purchase, even if they had found enough good holes in singles to know they wanted that land.
You seem to believe that. But, in the end, I don't know that most care to argue too much over whether he knew more in Dec. 1906 than he did in May 1907 about the final plans.
So what leaps of faith do we take? That the suggestion of housing was in fact the most logical use at the time and was the real plan? Believing that no one would send out surveyors to get those exact acreages prior to purchase and finalizing the routing? (If they did not, how would CBM know he had 205 acres in Dec 1906?)
You may disagree, but this scenario seems the most logical to me.
-
Or using David's timeline from CBM/
.1 There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck. (late 1905)
2. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property and studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price. (Fall 1906)
3. The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes. (Dec 1906)
4. CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted. (Jan 1907-April 1907, announcement in May 1907)
5. After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later. They had 3 months to finalize it, until about April 1907, which fits the general timeline.
6. At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.) I think the survey also included the boundaries, and when done the wiggle room was gone, but accomplished before May 1907)
7. At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began. Agreed, about May 1907
-
Jeff,
I am comfortable with my timeline, but your additions (in red) are inaccurate.
Most crucially, in your version, all that CBM and HJW had done prior to mid-December 1906 was ride the property for two or three days, and find the locations for a few holes. This is incorrect. The first four points in my timeline all occurred before mid-December 1906.
CBM told us that (in addition to this initial visit on horseback) they had already been earnestly studying the contours before they optioned the property. He also told us that a number of others (including Travis) had also been studying site. Another report indicated that CBM had already been communicating with overseas advisors about the the course and had even sent schematics (drawings or maps or plans or something; I can't remember the exact language off-hand.) CBM also told us that he had determined the approximate dimensions of the property and shape of the course --two miles long (starting and finishing near the Shinnecock Inn, a mile of frontage on Bullhead Bay, a quarter mile on Peconic) and "4 acres wide" which you, me, and Bryan all agree probably meant about 840 feet.
This a crucial. You've pushed much of the planning out of the pre December 1906 timeline, and that is inaccurate. By mid-December 1906 CBM, HJW, Travis, and others were not only very familiar with the site, they also already had a very good idea of how the golf course would fit on the site.
As for the other dates, there are a couple of other potential inaccuracies.
- We don't know when CBM and HJW first rode the land. One paper suggested that they had been studying this site since the previous spring or before. If that is true, then your date (Fall 1906) for the first ride if off by a long ways.
- I don't have the actual purchase date in front of me, but I recall it being earlier than May of 1907, I also don't think they waited until May to begin building, but I may be mistaken. Is May 1906 a guess on your part or are basing it on anything in particular?
I'll address the rest below.
-
Bryan,
I agree with much of what you wrote, but think that (perhaps because of our respective backgrounds) we have a fundamental epistemological differences. You seem to be searching for and requiring absolute certainty, whereas I am just trying to figure out what is most probable, becasuse in matters such as these, absolute certainty is an impossible standard. You also try to draw a dichotomy between certainty and opinions, but not all opinions are equal. Some are better supported by the facts than others. That is the way these things work.
For example, you wrote . . .
I doubt anybody would disagree with your first statement. Yes, there was some planning before the purchase and apparently 5 more months of detail planning after purchase. You draw an inference that CBM knew he didn't have the 90 acres available when he bought the property. That's your opinion and certainly possible or even probable, but it is not a fact. We don't know for certain when he knew.
Just so we are clear on the facts, the purchase did not occur until the Spring of 1907. He did not buy the property until after the detailed plans had been created. I assume what you mean to say is that I draw an inference that CBM knew he didn't have the 90 acres available when he optioned the property in December 1906. That is true. But my inference is based on layer upon layer of fact. As you say, it is "certainly possible or even probable." Probable means anywhere between 51-100% percent certain, and I can live with that.
I agree that on this property with the course he designed and built there was no room for the Founders lots. When he knew that there wasn't enough left over can still only be inferred. I haven't seen any factual evidence either way as to when CBM knew.
There is plenty of "factual evidence" of when he knew, just no direct statement by him explicitly stating that he was not subdividing the property for real estate (although he came damn close when stated that NGLA wasn't going into the bed business.) Again, you are looking for absolute certainty in areas where absolute certainty is impossible. If you balance the evidence, it is probable that CBM did not expect to be able fit 90 acres of founders lots on that property at the time he optioned the property.
Why did CBM include this inducement in the solicitation if he didn't intend it or the Founders didn't expect it to be fulfilled? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
The "solicitation" letter predated the NGLA purchase by two or three years. The discussion of the building lots was a hypothetical meant to explain that any left over land would go to the founders who could dispose of it as they saw fit. It had nothing to do with the specifics of CBM's purchase of the actual NGLA parcel. That CBM did not intend the hypothetical to be binding on future purchases is evidenced by the fact that he tried to purchase a 120AC parcel, which obviously did not include a real estate component. The subscription agreement and all the 1906 information makes it clear that for CBM the golf course was the priority. If land happened to be left over afterward, then the founders could decide what to do with it then.
-
Jeff, Continuing on to your other comments . . .
My take is that in January-March 1907,
CBM and committee finalized the routing.
They then told a surveyor to mark the boundaries, perhaps 150 feet off the proposed centerlines they had staked out.
That came out to more like 180 acres over 110 acres.
CBM may have considered reducing the golf course, but it was more important than the leftover land, so he kept it as designed.
He then allocated the remaining 25 acres to hit the 205 total contracted for near current 17 for Founders land. Is it any coincidence that it is on an existing (albeit then unimproved) road with some water view, which would be best for lots?
He may have contacted some founders, we do not know, but he obviously felt comfortable with a much reduced Founders parcel.
First, do you really think they were out there in the middle of winter planning? I can't say for certain, but I'd be very surprised if we ever find proof that a lot of field work was taking place during the winter. It doesn't seem like much happened during the winter in places like Southampton.
Second, and more importantly, I don't think the stuff about coming up with a 180 acre golf course then adding 25 acres to get to 205 makes any sense whatsoever. The entire east side of the border was locked. CBM had already described it by December 1906. The only wiggle room was on the west side of the property. Look at the border on the west side. It is drawn to fit the golf course. There is no place where he added in an additional 25 Acres to get to 205. Any extra land was either on the locked side or in between holes.
You don't really think that the developer was going to let CBM carve out little inaccessible islands (or donuts as you guys have called them) of land, do you?
This is why I keep imploring everyone to look at the maps. There was no extra land. CBM tailored the border to fit with the golf course. This is what CBM told us he would do in December 1906. He said nothing about Founder's lots, and no room for them anyway.
In some ways, this recalls the Merion debate, in which you seemed pretty certain that CBM had routed the course after a quick visit in June, despite writings saying otherwise. I believe in both cases, finalizing the routing simply took more time than you imagine. I don't believe the routing was completed prior to purchase, even if they had found enough good holes in singles to know they wanted that land.
Congratulations, Jeff. You've managed to grossly mischaracterize my understanding of the creation of two courses in one paragraph. So as to not get off track, I'll ignore it, but in the future please don't try to characterize my position on NGLA, Merion, or any other course. You get in wrong every time.
So what leaps of faith do we take? That the suggestion of housing was in fact the most logical use at the time and was the real plan? Believing that no one would send out surveyors to get those exact acreages prior to purchase and finalizing the routing? (If they did not, how would CBM know he had 205 acres in Dec 1906?)
I have no idea what you are asking here, but if you are asking where I think you are wrong, let me provide a few ideas:
1. You misdated your timeline, as I explained in my previous post. You pushed
2. You and Mike are assuming that CBM came in to the project thinking he was going to subdivide 90 acres of housing. I think this idea (if it ever was one) was already dead at the time CBM had previously tried to buy 120 acres of property.
3. If it wasn't dead then, it would have certainly died when CBM determined to purchase land from an active real estate development targeting CBM's potential members for customers.
In other words you guys have erroneously assumed your conclusion (that CBM wanted to include 90 acres of housing at the NGLA) and then mischaracterized the timing to make it seem more plausible than it really is.
-
I know I am treading into waters I shouldn't, but I have a question. I have heard that CB lived in a house across the water and oversaw the construction. If there were a bunch of building sites available on the property, why did he not build a house on site to oversee the construction?
-
Macdonald ' s plan for years was to buy 200 acres on Long Island, estimating 110 needed for course and the rest for Founders lots.
CBM's "plan" was to build the ideal golf course, not to become a real estate broker. CBM had tried to purchase 120 Acres from the same developer. This demonstrates that 1) He was NOT committed to buying 200 acres, and 2) He was NOT committed to supplying his Founders with 90 Acres of home lots.
If he secured 185 acres, or 224 acres, or 157 acres in Dec 1906 instead of 200 acres I'd certainly be inclined to agree with David's interpretation of events but I don't believe the number was coincidence when next day newspapers all reported the cottage component.
Okay, let me see if I follow you here . . . You seem to be implying that if it was any number than 200 you'd "certainly be inclined to agree with" me. The heart of your argument seems to be that any purchase of 200 acres by CBM automatically meant that CBM was definitely planning to subdivide 90 Acres for Founder Lots. And you believe this because some newspapers paraphrased a 1904 letter about a hypothetical 200 acre purchase?
Surely you understand that this doesn't really make any sense, don't you? You must realize that there could be other reasons to purchase 200 Acres (or 205 Acres.) For instance, CBM might have purchased that particular 205 acres because it turned out that HE NEEDED THOSE 205 ACRES TO BUILD HIS IDEAL GOLF COURSE!
It is not a "coincidence" that he purchased just enough land for his golf course! He didn't get lucky and just happen to get the right amount because he was planning on a real estate development using up almost half his land! This is CBM we are talking about. He had been traveling the world studying golf holes to replicate on his ideal course. Yet you think he would have carefully studied the land, the identified a number of holes and a number of other features, and still underestimate is golf course land needs by 83%!
That is what you seem to be arguing here. After all the preliminary work CBM had already done on this land, and after already developing a good idea of how the course would sit on the land, you think he miscalculated the amount of land he needed for his ideal golf course by 83%. He thought he needed 110 Acres, but he ended up needing 205. (Slightly more actually, if you count the additional small purchase west of the property which was not included in the initial purchase.)
And yes, I know he eventually purchased 205 acres around July 1907 but forget where and why he added to his purchase. ..
Wait . . . didn't you just suggest that "200" was somehow a magic number, and any variation from that number would mean that you agreed with me? It looks like you just remembered that he actually purchased 205 Acres, not 200. Yet you still don't agree with me. Strange. If exactly 200 means you are correct, and 185 or 224 or anything else other than 200 means I'm correct, then why doesn't 205 mean I'm correct? None of this makes any sense.
You forget why he added five acres to the purchase? The reason was because he needed the extra five acres for the golf course. It was all about the golf course for CBM, before, during, and after the process. It was always all about the golf course.
-
I know I am treading into waters I shouldn't, but I have a question. I have heard that CB lived in a house across the water and oversaw the construction. If there were a bunch of building sites available on the property, why did he not build a house on site to oversee the construction?
Keith,
That is a very good question.
I don't think any answer exists, though, because there were never any building sites on the NGLA property, and, most probably, CBM never intended to put building sites on that particular 205 Acre property.
As for CBM's building site across the Bay, I don't remember the date he purchased it but I assume (and sort of remember) that it was at some point after December 1906.
Mike or someone will probably try to tell us that after carefully studying the land for months, locating a number of holes, and developing at least a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land, CBM must have still been planning to build his house on the current NGLA land along with the 60-70 Founders, but then at some point that winter it finally dawned on them that they weren't going to have a spare 90 Acres lying around.
Seems silly to me, but that seems tobe what they are arguing.
-
I don't agree David and that's okay. I can explain more why I don't agree if I have any energy to do it yet again this coming week. From the reading of others posts I'm pretty sure they get what I'm saying very clearly even if you continue to act dumfounded though so you may want to try a different tactic.
At least we agree that designing the golf course and routing it was a months long process. Now you just need to convince Patrick. ;D
-
For those interested in roads here's a puff piece from the Realty Co from March 1908 about what they were calling the Shinnecock Hills Colony. They were a little optimistic that the course would be open for play in the fall of 1908. They claim that only three fine new roads have been constructed, the new North Highway and two north-south roads at the Suffolk Downs and Shinnecock Hills Stations on the RR were located.
Interesting that the names of various members of the Club keep getting published. I guess it was society page stuff in those days. Privacy at private clubs seems much more common now. Hard to imagine PV or Augusta publishing the names of some of their membership today.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7771/17159254123_f327c4ff22_o.jpg)
-
Here is some more information, from what looks to me like a very reliable source, about the history of the clubhouse at NGLA.
In the summer of 1910, two years after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, Macdonald finally decided that he wanted to build his clubhouse on the site where it sits today, on a hill overlooking Peconic Bay. It appears that in 1910 that he did not own the site on which the clubhouse is sited. The Realty Co offered to sell him the 2.5 acre site where the clubhouse now sits, but only as a site for the clubhouse. After some negotiation he bought the parcel of land and assisted by a committee had the clubhouse built over the summer of 1911 and completed by September. They tried to fund the clubhouse through the issuance of debentures.
The fact that he didn't own the clubhouse site in 1910 throws a wrench in my understanding of what property he did buy in 1906-07. Did they buy property with a lot in the middle withheld, or did the property not originally go as far west as the current 18th green and 1st tee?
At any rate, it appears certain that this site for the clubhouse is not where he always intended it be. If it was, I imagine that he would have thought to buy the site as part of the original land deal in 1906.
-
Very interesting Bryan. It would be fascinating to find the original metes and bounds but the routing extended to the current first and 18th holes from the get go, as depicted in the Aug 1907 article showing the routing.
-
Bryan, I am pretty sure your source is confusing the location of the clubhouse with the location of the pro shop.
CBM addressed the purchase to which you refer in the January 1912 letter . . .
. . . During the past year we found it necessary, in order to protect ourselves, to purchase two and one-half acres of additional land on Peconic Bay at the western end of the golf course. The Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company were loath to sell us this at a price under $1,000 an acre, but eventually, as expressed by them, to give us their aid, they sold us the two and one half acres for $750 an acre. They have land adjoining this two and one-half acres. It can therefore be safely stated that our original purchase of two hundred and five acres would be cheap at $500 an acre, as no land contiguous to ours can today be bought for less than that figure. To sum up, our two hundred and seven and one-half acres have cost about $45,000, including legal expenses, guarantee of title, and meadow rights subsequently purchased in order to make our water front absolutely secure.
Note that the land was at the western end of the golf course, on Peconic Bay, and adjacent to land controlled by the developer. The description fits for the pro shop and practice green location, but not the clubhouse location. Note also that this land doesn't seem to be included on the blueprint (this is assuming that the bunker in the upper corner is at the back of the 18th green.)
The pro shop, practice green and perhaps a bit of the current 1st tee sit on approximately 2.5 acres of property.
-
Some other tidbits about the early timeline for NGLA.
Regarding the acquisition of the land, they apparently made a down payment in late 1906 and paid the balance in the spring of 1907, presumably after they had done some detailed planning of the course and nailed down the land they wanted.
CBM, HJW et al may have hit balls on the roughed out course during construction in 1907-08.
In June of 1908 the Club was incorporated in the State of New York.
In 1909 some small groups lead by CBM "played over the course tentatively".
A small tournament, won by Ward, was played in 1909 according to CBM, although the contemporaneous news reports put it in 1910.
In May 1910 CBM issued stock in the Club.
CBM wrote to the Founders that the official opening was September 16, 1911.
-
It is interesting, though, that according to your unnamed source, that the developer would restrict the use of this parcel to a golf course related use (clubhouse/pro shop). Sounds like the developer was not interested in selling CBM land for building lots unencumbered by restrictions.
This makes sense. Why would the developer sell CBM discounted land for residential building lots, when the developer itself was trying to sell full price building lots adjacent to the course? As the developer readily acknowledged, a golf course enhanced the value of the development. Whereas a CBM subdivision cut directly into the developer's business.
-
David,
The source is pretty explicit that the 2.5 acres was the site of the current clubhouse and that the Realty Co explicitly wanted that to be the only thing built on it. But, I suppose you could be right and they are misinterpreting the correspondence of the time. I guess the deeds and their metes and bounds would be the only certain way to demonstrate where this 2.5 acre plot was.
-
David,
The source is pretty explicit that the 2.5 acres was the site of the current clubhouse and that the Realty Co explicitly wanted that to be the only thing built on it. But, I suppose you could be right and they are misinterpreting the correspondence of the time.
Bryan, From past experience I've learned to take unidentified sources with a grain of salt unless they back up their assertions. If you and your source want to provide his/her backup identifying the parcel as the clubhouse location (and not the pro shop location) I would be happy to consider it.
In the meantime, I think the best evidence (by far) is CBM's detailed description of this purchase in his Jan 1. 1912 letter to the founders.According to CBM, the additional 2.5 acre plot was:
1. "On Peconic Bay"
2. "[A]t the western end of the golf course."
3. "[A]djoining" land held by the developers.
None of these describe the clubhouse location. All describe the pro shop location.
If your source thinks that there must have been another 2.5 acre purchase (in addition to the one described by CBM in the letter) I'd ask why the additional 2.5 Acre purchase is listed in the 1912 letter?
From a common sense perspective, do you think that the developer would have sold CBM a donut shaped property, with their remaining holding locked-in by NGLA's land? For that matter, do you think that CBM would have allowed the developer to control a parcel right in the middle of his course when such a parcel would have required access easements through his course?
Do you see a cutout for this supposed parcel in either the blueprint or the August 1907 stick routing? I don't.
I guess the deeds and their metes and bounds would be the only certain way to demonstrate where this 2.5 acre plot was.
Again, we are faced with your dilemma of whether to go with the best evidence and the most probable conclusion, on the one hand, or whether to wait in for your desired absolute certainty, on the other. It is an easy decision for me. I'll go with CBM's contemporaneous account every time. But I'd be glad to reconsider if you ever come up with anything factual which refutes CBM.
-
The source material is also based on written correspondence by CBM and the Realty Co. There are quotes from it and there is mention of the 1st tee and a possible caddie shack, so your scenario is plausible. But, it explicitly limits the site to the clubhouse. Perhaps CBM agreed to that and then built the pro shop on it. Who knows?
I agree with your common sense thoughts, but I'd like to see the deeds.
I don't think it's a great dilemma. There is no time pressure to draw a "most probable conclusion". We, and others, have been at this for years. We can afford to wait and look for more factual information.
BTW, if you think the source is one of your off-line protagonists, it's not.
-
Who were the transferors and transferees of the original 205 acre parcel.
I find it hard to believe the club didn't own the doughnut hole between 1 and 18 from the get go.
-
Bryan, I didn't think the source was one of my off-line protagonists. The information seems a bit too sound to have come from them. That said, there may be a few points that might be worth clarifying . . .
Regarding the acquisition of the land, they apparently made a down payment in late 1906 and paid the balance in the spring of 1907, presumably after they had done some detailed planning of the course and nailed down the land they wanted.
CBM wrote that they "obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. " An option isn't quite the same thing as a down payment, but that is a small point. I only bring it up because I am wondering if your "source material" contains information about the purchase which contradicts CBM's description.
In 1909 some small groups lead by CBM "played over the course tentatively".
Your source seems to be quoting Scotland's Gift. CBM wrote that in 1909 that they "played over the course tentatively" (at about 6100 yards from the regular tees.) I don't consider a group of twenty to be a "small group" but I suppose that is a matter of interpretation.
A small tournament, won by Ward, was played in 1909 according to CBM, although the contemporaneous news reports put it in 1910.
There was an "improvised competition"in 1909 for around 20 players and another well-publicized tournament in early July 1910. Ward played in both, but did not win either.
- In the 1909 tournament Herreshoff beat Ward in the semi-finals, and W.T. Tuckerman beat Hereshoff in the finals of the first flight of eight. CBM beat Robert Watson "one up" in the finals of the second flight of eight.
- In the well-publicized invitational in July of 1910, CBM played in the first flight (not the second.) The first flight was won by Herreshoff, and S.K. DeForrest of Shinnecock beat Frank Thomas in the finals of the second flight. Neither Tuckerman nor Watson played in the the second tournament.
Modern commentators (including your source) seem to think that CBM misdated the first tournament as 1909, when it actually occurred in 1910. But judging by the different winners and participants, there were definitely two tournaments. (The confusion probably stems from the fact that CBM indicated that Ward's great round was in 1909, when in fact it was in 1910.)
CBM wrote to the Founders that the official opening was September 16, 1911.
According to CBM, the "formal" opening was on this date. But they had been golfing on the course for a few seasons before this. Keep in mind that once the Shinnecock Inn burned down, the club had no clubhouse until the current clubhouse was finished in 1911. In my opinion, this goes a long ways toward explaining the delay.
-
Here is the Oct. 16, 1906 Boston Globe article discussing the acquisition:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891)
There are obviously a few potential inaccuracies with this article. For example the purchase had not yet taken place, although it is possible that CBM and HJW had reached an informal agreement. (My guess is that CBM/HJW or Travis let it slip that the developer had agreed to sell CBM property for the golf course.) Also, the acreage is reported at 250 and not 205 yards. Not sure if this is a mistake or whether CBM had not yet narrowed it down to 205. Sebonac neck fits the physical description. (Surely Mike will now relaunch his old theory about a mystery third site, but hopefully the rest of us won't take the bait.)
The reason I reposted the article is that it indicates that CBM and HJW (and perhaps Travis) had already been hard at work studying the contours, and that elevation maps had already been made and sent to overseas advisors.
-
David,
Given the number of inaccuracies in the report, do you think it's possible that the reporter confused CBM sending maps and hole drawings to those folks from his overseas visit? I always had that impression given Macdonald ' s claim that the Sebonac Neck site had never been surveyed at the time he was considering it for purchase.
Also...no need to discuss third sites. I'm comfortable we know pretty closely where he was hoping to purchase at first now that we understand no major roadways would have impeded that aquisition.
-
David,
The source is pretty explicit that the 2.5 acres was the site of the current clubhouse and that the Realty Co explicitly wanted that to be the only thing built on it. But, I suppose you could be right and they are misinterpreting the correspondence of the time. I guess the deeds and their metes and bounds would be the only certain way to demonstrate where this 2.5 acre plot was.
CBM sold 205 acres to the club in 1910 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Aug. 20, 1910).
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Deed%20-%20Brooklyn%20Daily%20Eagle%20Aug.%201%201910_zps3avrmplh.png)
In 1912 (as David noted above), CBM noted the club held 207.5 acres, including the 2.5 acres purchased for the proshop location.
Seems pretty clear that when the clubhouse was built in 1910, it was on the original 205 acre parcel.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Sven.
________________________________________________
David,
Given the number of inaccuracies in the report, do you think it's possible that the reporter confused CBM sending maps and hole drawings to those folks from his overseas visit?
The possible inaccuracies (if they are in fact in accuracies) are not all that surprising. It is not unusual to find a land purchase reported at the time the parties came to an agreement, rather than at the time the formal transfer of title took place. (For example this same thing happened with Merion - the sale was reported months before the sale was actually finalized, and it happened with some of the underlying properties as well --the sale of the 21 Acre Dallas estate was reported months before the sale was finalized. This is in part the nature of real estate transactions. As for the 250 acres, we don't know if that is inaccurate or not. It could be that developer had agreed to sell CBM up to 250 acres, but that CBM ultimately decided he only needed 205. Or it could be an inaccuracy. I don't put much significance on it either way.
There is plenty in the article that rings true. CBM's intentions, the (pending) sale, the construction schedule, the general description of the topography, the desire to seek expert opinions here and abroad, the names of the experts CBM consulted, Whigham working with CBM on the property, Travis's involvement, the location and description of the property. The information came from someone who was very familiar with project. By the list of the names of foreign experts I'd guess the information came from HJW or CBM himself (either directly or indirectly), those guys were CBM's crowd, and not the type of names that someone is just going to pull out of thin air.
As for your theory that maybe "the reporter confused CBM sending maps and hole drawings to those folks from his overseas visit." Pardon me for saying so, Mike, but you seem to have just made this up. There is no evidence of which I am aware that CBM sent overseas experts information about overseas golf holes, and I can think of no reason why CBM would be trying to educate them about their holes. The idea of CBM providing John Low with descriptions of holes on the Old Course is pretty funny to imagine, but entirely factually baseless.
In short, we can't just make up facts we like to replace facts we don't like. Yet that is exactly what you seem to be trying to do here.
I always had that impression given Macdonald ' s claim that the Sebonac Neck site had never been surveyed at the time he was considering it for purchase.
When CBM first mentioned the property he said it had never been surveyed and everyone thought it was more or less worthless. But he and CBM didn't think it was worthless, and while they were out there earnestly studying the contours they certainly had the resources and/or ability to come up with some semblance of maps/drawings with elevations and ideas about what they wanted to do with the course. Besides, weren't you the one who was recently arguing that, when CBM said that the land hadn't been surveyed, he must have meant that it had never been surveyed for housing? (Somehow I think you'll change your mind about that.)
As for your last paragraph, I'll refrain from comment except to say I don't agree with your understanding.
-
Above Keith OHalloran asked, if there were a bunch of building sites available on the property, then didn't CBM build a home on NGLA's property? I tried to answer, but I was hoping Mike or Jeff would also try to explain it (but frankly I don't think they can reasonably explain it.) In the interim, I thought some might like to see the house CBM built across Bullshead Bay from NGLA. Here is a photo from 1913:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Ballyshear-1913.jpg)
According to the article the house sat on a couple hundred acres that CBM had acquired a few years before, and featured extensive landscaping including an Italian garden. Here is the a link to the 1913 article.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8vxHAQAAMAAJ&dq=ballyshear&pg=RA6-PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false
When reading about CBM's palatial estate, keep in mind that Mike claims that in December 1906 CBM intended for their to be "cottage component" on the land at NGLA where all of the Founders would have been given lots to build "cottages" on the current golf course property. (Mike even tried to claim the building lots were for "cabins" but he had no factual basis for so claiming.) Apparently Mike thinks that cabins and cottages sound less imposing and therefor more plausible than summer homes. Just so we are clear on what passed as a "cottage," here is an image of a Southampton "cottage" from around this time:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Wyckoff-Cottage-1910.jpg)
The photo comes from a book called Southampton Cottages of Gin Lane.
http://www.amazon.com/Southampton-Cottages-Gin-Lane-The/dp/1609492781
-
David, it's CBM who made the statement/intention/suggestion to give 1.5 acres as inducement for the $1,000 Founder subscription. Mike simply thinks the notion of providing something in return for the subscription carried forward...which it clearly did considering CBM's letter to the Founders posted sometime back. You and I disagreed on this a week or so ago, but that letter clearly places the Board of Directors higher on the chain of command than the Founders.
-
David,
There is a very simple explanation as to why CBM didn't take 1.5AC of land within NGLA - He wanted a 200 acre estate and bought one right next door.
I do agree with you it might be very possible that the other founders - look at some of those names - may have told CBM that they would need more land for their summer cottages, and that is the start of the end of the plan to provide land for cottages. Perhaps CBM simply misread the market for such things, but that is just speculation.
In any case, I know my timeline is later than yours, and yours may even be closer to correct on the basic design. But, I still have to wonder how CBM would assess how many acres he had on horseback and whether surveyor would be brought in before there was an option. That three months to finalize the deal seems tailor made for that kind of activity, and I suspect CBM didn't focus on the extra land, etc. until he finalized the routing, got the surveyors, knew the acreage he had taken, etc.
I am not sure how you can look at that graphic and claim the border hugs the golf course in its entirety. You seem to be ignoring it to make your point. It does everywhere but the 17th, where there is an extra 60-90 yards of land from the edge of the fairway. CBM said there was extra land after the fact, the map shows extra land by 17, so really, that has to be what he was talking about, no?
-
David,
Again, here's what Macdonald said about when the course opened in "Scotland's Gift";
"It was not until 1909 that some twenty friends played over the
course in an improvised condition, our club-house a tent. The
course was very rough and, as I have said, distinctly shorter than it
is now.."
Yesterday you wrote;
There was an "improvised competition"in 1909 for around 20 players and another well-publicized tournament in early July 1910.
When did the improvised golf course become an improvised competition?
-
Read the book again Mike. It is always said "improvised competition." I've explained this to you now three times at least, yet you stick with your made up quote. Yet you wonder why I get frustrated with you? You see what you want to see, not the real facts.
-
David,
You're correct and that was my mistake, sorry.
I cut and paste that quote from a .pdf of the book which garbled a few words and in correcting I mistook "competition" with "condition".
**EDIT** - I also just realized that the electronic version of the book seems somewhat abridged from the hardbound version I have at home.
As related to our earlier discussion about the state of development of the golf course at various times, this morning I was reading the hardbound version and CBM tells a story about the state of the course by the fall of 1907 and how while having lunch at Shinnecock a good friend of his had to walk away rather than shed tears for his friend. I find that story to be at odds with an earlier posted article from early 1908 which stated the golf course was essentially almost ready to go.
Would someone be so kind as to reproduce that snippet here?
-
David,
As to field work in the winter, there is no reason not to do it. I have. If memory serves, Tom Doak's first walk of neighboring Seonak was on a bitter cold day. Sometimes, on heavily wooded sites, its easier to see through the trees with leaves off.
As I said on the earlier post, CBM and team may have had more than a few holes laid out before the actual option, but your schedule did note that the surveying occurred after the option. That makes sense to me. And, it makes sense that this is when the property line was settled upon.
And again, you might be right that by the exact date of Dec 1906 newspaper article the whole idea of 90 acres for Founders cottages was dead, but I simply think it lasted in principle because of CBM's later notes, and perhaps as a tangible goal until May of 1907, when they figured out that there was room to do both well.
I have no real heartburn if it would be determined it was unfeasible was a bit earlier, as you say. I don't think we can know, and I don't see the need for endless arguments. Most of the other stuff is red herring, IMHO.
-
Sven,
I don't know who the two parties to the original transaction were. Your posted snippet suggests that CBM and wife were the buyers in 2007 and then sold it to NGLA in 1910. When/if we get the deeds it'll be clear the who, when and where of the original purchase and the subsequent clubhouse site purchase.
-
David,
The last paragraph of the article provides a pretty loose description of the property. In fact it pretty much includes all of Sebonac Neck. The 205 acre property doesn't skirt the RR in the south and goes nowhere near the inlet to Cold Spring Pond in the west. The plot described would be well over 500 acres. So, the 250 acres looks like a mistake and the site location description is wrong. I'm glad you think that the maps, undulations and mail part is correct.
Here is the Oct. 16, 1906 Boston Globe article discussing the acquisition:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891)
There are obviously a few potential inaccuracies with this article. For example the purchase had not yet taken place, although it is possible that CBM and HJW had reached an informal agreement. (My guess is that CBM/HJW or Travis let it slip that the developer had agreed to sell CBM property for the golf course.) Also, the acreage is reported at 250 and not 205 yards. Not sure if this is a mistake or whether CBM had not yet narrowed it down to 205. Sebonac neck fits the physical description. (Surely Mike will now relaunch his old theory about a mystery third site, but hopefully the rest of us won't take the bait.)
The reason I reposted the article is that it indicates that CBM and HJW (and perhaps Travis) had already been hard at work studying the contours, and that elevation maps had already been made and sent to overseas advisors.
-
It’s good to see we’ve reached a point where it seems evident that there was ongoing communications and coordination to some degree between the Real Estate Developer and Macdonald. I’ll be very interested to see what Bryan’s source is able to reveal as relates to their correspondence. The Goddard book “Colonizing Southampton” certainly alludes to their collaboration regarding the site of the new Shinnecock Inn, which would need to be close to available transportation;
”A new site for the hotel was selected a little to the east of the Hills depot and at the southern tip of the projected National Golf Links. This was no doubt deliberate. In 1907, Charles Macdonald had no immediate plans for a club house, and it would have made eminent sense to Redfield that the many well-heeled golfers expected to descend on the National would need a place to stay.”
“As it turned out, he and the railroad also thought to move the Golf Grounds Station farther to the west and closer to the hotel (and thus to the National) but was stopped by the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, or, rather, by its combustible president, Judge Horace Russell. Russell, a self-described old railroad man himself who knew what it meant “to submit to the whimsical caprices of residents along the line of the road,” wrote to the LIRR’s president that “it would not serve anybody’s convenience, so far as the golf club is concerned, if it were to be moved to the west end of the golf club property; the Railroad Company might just was well discontinue the station altogether.” That ended that, but one might well wonder if Redfield threw in the removal of the depot to sweeten the deal with Macdonald. We will never know. But the hotel went up in 1907 and was open for business that summer.”
Again, I think this is important to keep in mind as one considers the chain of events. I’m certainly open to changing my opinion as any new evidence warrants but this is what it seems like to me;
1904 – CBM drafts an Agreement which he sends to subscribers asking them to become Founding members of his club. Included in the Agreement is this language;
” Assuming that we buy 200 acres, it would take about 110 acres to lay out the golf course proper, and five acres for a clubhouse and accessories. We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground in fee simple. The ground in itself should be worth $500 an acre in the vicinity of a golf course of this character.”
It should be noted that CBM is estimating exact numbers as he says “about 110 acres”, but it’s clear the implication is that whatever is left over after the golf course is completed will be split between the Founders. His mention of the value of the land once the course is built is clearly meant as financial enticement, as an investment.
Macdonald also told us that he had 60 subscribers signed up at the time he made offers on land so it’s clear all involved bought into this “Agreement”.
1905/06 – CBM offers the Real Estate Developer $200 an acre for 120 acres of land near the Shinnecock Canal but the owner refuses. That area is right smack dab where the developer is having Olmsted & Vaux survey and sub-divide 1320 acres of recently purchased land into lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 5 acres.
Clearly at that time Macdonald thought he could build his Ideal course on 120 acres of land. There would be no need for a housing component because he would have been aware of the Developers plans for creating housing plots on the land in that area. At that price they could have probably also built a clubhouse from the get-go.
Since CBM thought he could fit his course on that 120 acres, what was so special or different about that land versus the Sebonac Neck site where he suddenly supposedly felt he needed 67% more acreage for his golf course? Did he survey that 120 acre site first prior to making his offer? Did he clear the land prior to making an offer? Did he route a golf course on the 120 acres prior? I sense no. I think he looked at the land for the type of soils and terrain he wanted and in his own words, “Having the material in hand to work upon, the completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience, gardening, and mathematics.”
1906 - CBM considers 450 acres of land up in Sebonac Neck, which was overgrown, insect-infested, had never been surveyed for housing, and CBM tells us ”every one thought it more or less worthless”. It was simply outside of the Developers plans and there were no plans to create housing lots “adjacent” to the course as David suggested, beyond a single plot or two adjacent to today’s 9th green at the southern boundary of the course. In fact, almost all of the land adjacent to the golf course is today holes on the Shinnecock Hills and Sebonack golf courses!
What’s more, the proposed lots that CBM had in mind would be sized based on whatever was left over after the golf course was routed and divided accordingly to a maximum of 1.5 acre lots or smaller. I’m not sure how these would have been seen “in competition” with the 3 to 5 acre luxury sites the Developer intended on land they were already surveying?
Complicating factors of the Sebonac Neck site included accessibility, lodging, but I’m sure the developer would have told him about plans for the Shinnecock Inn, as Goddard suggests.
In Macdonald’s words, “So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably…the company agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose”
That contract securing the land was signed on Friday, December 14, 1906, again at $200 per acre. That weekend multiple newspapers reported that the land deal for Founders usage was part of the Agreement. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle probably had the best information at that time, at least casting a bit of doubt when they wrote, "While the matter is not settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon."
If indeed the Real Estate Developer had been concerned about real estate competition on land they considered worthless, can you imagine how they would have freaked when every major New York City newspaper ran with the story of CBM providing 60 building lots? If indeed this wasn’t still part of Macdonald’s Agreement plan with the well-heeled Founders in late 1906 can you imagine how CBM would have freaked when that was reported?
After that 1906 agreement was reached, CBM tells us the next steps; “Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.”
That is consistent with the December 1906 newspaper articles where Macdonald is quoted as saying the next several months would be devoted to selecting the holes and planning the course in detail, after which the boundaries would be staked out and plaster models would be created to guide the builders.
Obviously, the course that was then routed and built took up much more land than Macdonald’s original projections. But even with that he addressed the issue of “Surplus Land” again in his 1912 letter to the membership where he referred to the Original Agreement as follows;
“You will note in the original subscription it was stated that there would be some acres of land which would not be required for the golf course proper. This has proved to be true, and this land is at the disposal of the Founders, but you will note in the minutes of the Founders' meeting of December 20th, 1911, that no action was taken in the matter, it being left to the wishes of the Founders, to be expressed at some future time.”
Macdonald wrote, again in 1912;
Some six years ago the idea was formulated of establishing a classic golf course in America, one which would be designed after and eventually compared favorably with the championship links abroad and serve as an incentive to the elevation of the game in the United States...There is attached a copy of the original agreement, the spirit of which has been carried out as closely as has been consistent with the object which the Founders had in view.
Frankly, I think Macdonald really didn’t care much to provide a housing component as time went on and clearly his first priority was the excellence of the golf course. But to say he had already scrapped his plans for housing by the time he inked the agreement in December 1906 is baseless, frankly, and if there is any hard evidence to the contrary I’d ask that we finally get to see it here.
I think perhaps Bryan Izatt had the best summation a few days back when he wrote;
It was said multiple times that the intention was to build the course on 110 acres with 5 acres for the club-house and ancillary buildings and 90 acres for land for the founders. It was also said that they needed to buy 200 or more acres. Curious that they didn't do the math and say 205 or more acres.
When do you suppose in the process that CBM determined that he couldn't actually fit his ideal course on 110 acres? Would it have been after the course was designed and he had the site surveyed? Were CBM or the others experts on estimating acreage; 110 or 205 acres covers a lot of ground? I doubt that most people could guesstimate areas that large.
If we take CBM's simplistic description of the property as a rectangle 2 miles long by 4 acres wide that most likely meant the rectangle was 280 yards wide. If you ascribe a 100 yard wide corridor going out and another 100 yard wide corridor coming back in, that leaves a corridor of say 40 yards on either side. Given that site was 2 miles long in the simplistic description, the exterior corridors could support close to 60 lots. Now, I don't believe for a moment that the site was actually a rectangle. I think CBM simplified it that way for the press and potential members. But, in simplistic mathematical terms I can see how he thought there would be enough rooms on a 205 acre site.
Of course, that would all go awry in a real world routing on a real world topographical site. Perhaps he knew the course wan't going to work on a 110 acre site when he finished the routing. Or, maybe it only became clear when he had the site surveyed afterwards. Or, maybe the 1.5 acre plots were just a come-on for the investors and were never intended to be real. Given that he made an early offer on the 120 acre site near the canal suggests to me that initially he may not have understood that his ideal course of template holes using some existing natural features wasn't going to fit on that small a plot, although, I guess, Merion subsequently managed to get a pretty good, although tightly constrained, course on 120 acres.
I just thought I would take one last opportunity to clear up how I think things happened. Again, I’m open to change my opinion if people have any actual facts or hard evidence indicating differently rather than just stating their own opinions repeatedly. Thanks.
-
Jim,
It was CBM who wrote the subscription letter agreement, but that was in 1904. The hypothetical about the 90 acres of housing did not control what CBM was specifically planning to do in 1906 on this particular piece of property.
Your version of what "Mike simply thinks . . ." is very different than Mike's version. According to Mike, in December 1906 CBM intended to subdivide the NGLA property into 60-70 building lots for the Founders, and the reason that he didn't was because during planning and construction CBM made the fairways wider than he anticipated, and there were more swamps than he realized.
As for your comments on the Founders vs. the Board, I fail to see the significance to the issue at hand. It looks to me like in CBM's eyes, the club belonged to the Founders. Founders elected the Board to run the club, but the Founders also reserved certain powers to themselves such as approving/disapproving membership sales and the disposition of excess land. I don't think such an arrangement is at all unusual, nor do I think that dwelling on it helps us understand whether CBM specifically intended to carve 60 residential lots out of the NGLA property.
__________________________________________________________
Jeff,
There is a very simple explanation as to why CBM didn't take 1.5AC of land within NGLA - He wanted a 200 acre estate and bought one right next door.
Applying your same logic, there is a very simple explanation of why CBM never carved out 60-70 residential lots out of the NGLA property --He wanted from the beginning to use the entire parcel for a golf course.
I am not sure how you can look at that graphic and claim the border hugs the golf course in its entirety. You seem to be ignoring it to make your point. It does everywhere but the 17th, where there is an extra 60-90 yards of land from the edge of the fairway. CBM said there was extra land after the fact, the map shows extra land by 17, so really, that has to be what he was talking about, no?
Again, Jeff, you are misunderstanding my position. What I said was that the eastern border was locked by the physical characteristics of the property (Peconic Bay, Bullshead Bay, Shinnecock GC), and it had already been determined by mid December 1906. CBM only had room to manipulate the border to the west, and the eastern border fits snugly to property.
As to field work in the winter, there is no reason not to do it. I have. If memory serves, Tom Doak's first walk of neighboring Seonak was on a bitter cold day. Sometimes, on heavily wooded sites, its easier to see through the trees with leaves off.
I am not sure that what professional architects would do in 2015 is necessarily the same what a NY socialite would do in 1906. Southampton was a largely a Summer colony for the social elite, and not a lot was ongoing in the Winter. Maybe CBM and HJW trekked out there in the winter. Or maybe they hired Raynor to do some additional surveying on the land they had been carefully studying at the end of the previous season. But I am not sure I buy the suggestion that they didn't do much of anything in the summer and fall, but then ramped up their activities in the winter.
(Also, we aren't talking about a heavily wooded forest of mature trees, we are talking about a property overrun with huckleberry bushes.)
As I said on the earlier post, CBM and team may have had more than a few holes laid out before the actual option, but your schedule did note that the surveying occurred after the option. That makes sense to me. And, it makes sense that this is when the property line was settled upon.
The October 16, 1906, Boston Globe article indicates that they had already created maps with elevations by that date. More formal surveying apparently occurred after December 1906 as well.
-
David,
I've expressed, in detail, what I believe above. Please feel free to quote directly from it.
Other than that, I'd ask that you refrain from paraphrasing and mis-characterizing what I "think" and "believe" in your own words. Please trust people to read what I write for themselves and I trust you can do the same.
-
Here's what CBM wrote in 1912 regarding most of the men mentioned in that Boston Globe article, for what it's worth;
We have also been helped by some of
the most eminent men in the game of golf
abroad, who have taken a most friendly
interest in the undertaking, and I have to
thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson,
Mr. John L. Low, Mr. 'Harold
H. Hilton, Mr. J. Sutherland, Mr. W. T.
Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles
Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. Alexander
MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H
S. Everard, for the maps, photographs,
and suggestions which they have given us.
-
David,
I've expressed, in detail, what I believe above. Please feel free to quote directly from it.
Other than that, I'd ask that you refrain from paraphrasing and mis-characterizing what I "think" and "believe" in your own words. Please trust people to read what I write for themselves and I trust you can do the same.
Mike, I mischaracterized NOTHING. Here is what I wrote about your position to Jim above:
Jim,
Your version of what "Mike simply thinks . . ." is very different than Mike's version. According to Mike, in December 1906 CBM intended to subdivide the NGLA property into 60-70 building lots for the Founders, and the reason that he didn't was because during planning and construction CBM made the fairways wider than he anticipated, and there were more swamps than he realized.
Here is the same information, only with direct quotes:
Jim,
Your version of what "Mike simply thinks . . ." is very different than Mike's version. According to Mike, as of December 1906, "nothing at all had changed from CBM's original plan to purchase 200 or so acres of which he estimated needing about 110 acres for golf and the rest for housing lots available to the Founders. His plans changed after this, either during the routing or construction processes." According to Mike, CBM's "plans changed" for two reasons: "First, I think more of the acreage was swampy and unusable than perhaps CBM realized. . . . Also, I think that the plan to create alternative routes for the weaker player on every hole meant that the course became effectively much wider than originally estimated."
As you can see I misrepresented nothing.
Speaking of misrepresentations, I've read your latest version of what believe. I'll get to it in due course.
-
David,
Sure, why not.....it ain't a thread until it hits 20 pages!
-
David,
Sure, why not.....it ain't a thread until it hits 20 pages!
Jeff, I just noticed that I misspoke in my last post to you. It should read, "CBM only had room to manipulate the border to the west, and the western border fits snugly to golf course." I don't want to change it now else I be falsely accused of shenanigans.
-
David,
Thanks. I noticed and thought you had it backwards, but wasn't going to say much, thinking my position, which is similar to Bryan's and maybe Mike's, but allows that you might be right on earlier timing, has been reiterated enough.
-
As seen earlier, the first publication of the routing was published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on August 26, 1907. That article refers to another published two weeks prior, which I've located.
It's probably the best article to date in terms of a "real time" report on the state of construction. It's likely that this was some of what made Macdonald's good friend nearly come to tears as recounted in "Scotland's Gift". Does anyone have that snippet handy to post?
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/17646050939_9c99b2168c_z.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5459/17644900340_ba5683d43c_z.jpg)
-
Mike, I mischaracterized NOTHING. Here is what I wrote about your position to Jim above:
Jim,
Your version of what "Mike simply thinks . . ." is very different than Mike's version. According to Mike, in December 1906 CBM intended to subdivide the NGLA property into 60-70 building lots for the Founders, and the reason that he didn't was because during planning and construction CBM made the fairways wider than he anticipated, and there were more swamps than he realized.
Here is the same information, only with direct quotes:
Jim,
Your version of what "Mike simply thinks . . ." is very different than Mike's version. According to Mike, as of December 1906, "nothing at all had changed from CBM's original plan to purchase 200 or so acres of which he estimated needing about 110 acres for golf and the rest for housing lots available to the Founders. His plans changed after this, either during the routing or construction processes." According to Mike, CBM's "plans changed" for two reasons: "First, I think more of the acreage was swampy and unusable than perhaps CBM realized. . . . Also, I think that the plan to create alternative routes for the weaker player on every hole meant that the course became effectively much wider than originally estimated."
As you can see I misrepresented nothing.
Speaking of misrepresentations, I've read your latest version of what believe. I'll get to it in due course.
David,
Don't be so pedantic and stop wasting your time characterizing what I write. No one, probably not even Patrick at this point, seems to be buying it, so just stop.
The plan to have a real estate component with whatever land wasn't used for the golf course hadn't changed by December 1906. It's not that big a deal. Your repeated insistence that it had to be 90 acres is really just repeating what CBM originally estimated and that unused amount obviously changed over time with the subsequent design and construction process in 1907.
If you have evidence otherwise please just produce it and I'll change my mind if it's warranted and I'm sure others here will as well.
Thanks.
-
So in 1904 CBM has a plan to purchase 200 or so acres and use 115 for the golf course and clubhouse, with the extra to be used for building lots.
In 1905/06 he makes an offer on 120 acres. Seems to me he had already abandoned the housing idea.
As to why he went from 110/115/120 to 205 for the land needed for the course, this was before his trip overseas, during which (or shortly after) he finalized the concept of his ideal course. This was also during a time when courses were being built at greater lengths than they had been previously, specifically right during the time golf in this country was adapting to the new golf ball.
Seems pretty basic to me.
Sven
-
Sven,
Yes, but in 1910, he advised Merion that they only needed 100 acres, and discussed 120. However, I have a pet theory that he felt they needed 120, and recommended the 100 to help them lower the price of surrounding properties should anyone catch on they were buying and needed so much.
Either way, the recommendation came after NGLA was complete, and I wonder why he went back to that when NGLA obviously took so much more land? At 6100 yards it wasn't that long, and Merion came out a bit longer.
-
Sven,
Yes, but in 1910, he advised Merion that they only needed 100 acres, and discussed 120. However, I have a pet theory that he felt they needed 120, and recommended the 100 to help them lower the price of surrounding properties should anyone catch on they were buying and needed so much.
Either way, the recommendation came after NGLA was complete, and I wonder why he went back to that when NGLA obviously took so much more land? At 6100 yards it wasn't that long, and Merion came out a bit longer.
Jeff:
I think those are very site specific questions. The constraints at each location were not the same.
Sven
-
Here's a bit more on the clubhouse and on the state of the golf course in August 1909 from the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle"
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5452/17830970892_722c636f15_b.jpg)
Sven,
There was no need for building lots on the 120 acre site CBM offered to buy because that site and another 1300 or so acres in that area was already being surveyed for 3 to 5 acre building lots by Olmsted and Vaux for the Real Estate Company who owned the land and would have likely been surrounded by houses galore.
The Sebonac Neck site on the other had had been deemed worthless and had not been surveyed for those purposes.
***EDIT*** I just saw your reply to Jeff and would ask you this question.
I posted the topo map of the region earlier. What do you think would have been so markedly different between the two sites that would make CBM think he could be a golf course on 120 acres at one site yet require 67% more land at the other?
-
So he didn't have to fulfill his promise to the founders to make lots on property available? He was off the hook?
Doesn't seem like it was that strong a sticking point in the original deal, does it?
Sven
-
Sven,
I just posted this question above and then saw your response so I'll ask again here.
I posted the topo map of the region earlier. What do you think would have been so markedly different between the two sites that would make CBM think he could build a golf course on 120 acres at one site yet require 70% more land at 205 acres at the other?
As far as the housing component being dropped for the first site, I'm sure they would have figured out what to do with the savings. Perhaps build a clubhouse?
-
Sven,
Yes, but in 1910, he advised Merion that they only needed 100 acres . . .
Jeff. That is just not true. CBM did NOT advise Merion that they only needed 100 acres! When CBM/HJW first went over the site, Merion was considering purchase of about 120 Acres, and CBM advised them that they probably needed a bit more land. Here is part of what he told them: "The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House." Please lets not inject fictional accounts about Merion into this thread. Thanks.
Also, NGLA's 6100 yardage was from the regular tees. The course was quite a lot longer from the back tees even then.
I think Sven has it about right regarding the reason CBM needed ended up wanting more acreage at NGLA. I'd add that CBM wasn't working off of some architect's formula about distances and width needed. He was finding his ideal golf holes, then drawing a property line around what had found! And he had 450 acres of great golf land within which do find the holes. The course ended up being 205 Acres because CBM wanted to use all of the incredible landforms he found which fit in with his ideas on the ideal golf course.
__________________________
Mike, That's what you wrote. I've mischaracterized nothing. Glad to see though that you seem to be backtracking on your ridiculous position about the 90 acres. Finally! I hope it keeps up so we can get somewhere.
-
Mike:
I think his idea of what exactly he wanted to build changed from early 1906 to late 1906. As discussed on the Lido thread, NGLA came out longer than he had discussed in his original article of an ideal course.
I also think that the deal they got on the "undesirable" land allowed them to purchase more of it, and to spread the course out on the property in a way that they couldn't have done on a tighter more expensive site, the opposite of what was done later at Merion (as pointed out by Jeff).
It is also possible that he had seriously underestimated how much land it would take to build what he wanted. The practice in the US to that point had been to get by with 100-120 acre sites, particularly in close proximity to major urban areas. Then again, perhaps it was the land itself at Sebonac Neck that necessitated a larger site, or perhaps those natural features he looked to blend into his templates were more spread out, creating a space between the holes in a way that wouldn't have been replicated on another site.
Sven
-
David:
Judging by the contents of our last two posts (which crossed in the mail), I think we're on the same page.
Sven
-
Sven,
I agree. We are on the same page.
_________________________________________________
Here's a bit more on the clubhouse and on the state of the golf course in August 1909 from the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle"
Sven,
There was no need for building lots on the 120 acre site CBM offered to buy because that site and another 1300 or so acres in that area was already being surveyed for 3 to 5 acre building lots by Olmsted and Vaux for the Real Estate Company who owned the land and would have likely been surrounded by houses galore.
The Sebonac Neck site on the other had had been deemed worthless and had not been surveyed for those purposes.
The same logic applies equally to NGLA's current location.
The bit about the Sebonac neck property being worthless and somehow remote from the rest of the development just isn't true.
-
Sven,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I just think it happened a bit later than you suggest and I'd simply note that the price per acre was identical at both sites, $200.
-
The price CBM offered may have been identical, but only one of those offers was accepted. That says something.
-
1. In his long post a few above, Mike insists that the SHPB development was not adjacent to NGLA. Here again in this last post Mike contrasts the NGLA site with the previous CBM 120 acre site, as if the NGLA site was somehow remote to the rest of the development. This just isn't true or accurate. NGLA was right next to the SHPB development and NGLA's de facto clubhouse was a key component of the development!
Here is an overlay of a section of that Development which shows that NGLA was adjacent to the development, as was NGLA's de facto clubhouse, the Shinnecock Inn.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-Overlay-1907crop.jpg?t=1299873957)
Also, SHPB most certainly viewed NGLA as adjacent to the development, or even part of the development itself!.The advertisements for the SHPB development repeatedly highlighted the proximity and easy access to NGLA from every building lot on the entire development. Indeed, the advertisements treat NGLA as if it were part of the same development, and it some sense this was true, given the prior ownership, the contiguousness of the land, the cooperation (according to Goddard) between CBM and SHPB in locating the Inn/Clubhouse, and the dual role the Inn was playing as on-site headquarters of the development and as NGLA's de facto clubhouse. Here (From Goddard's book) is what the President of SHPB had to say in his annual report to investors at the end of 1906:
In his first report to the stockholders at the end of 1906, he gloated that Macdonald and his co-religionists “intend to make this golf course famous both here and abroad, desiring that it shall be so well known that visiting foreigners and golfers from all over America shall make it a center for this sport. The advantage to your property of having located there two of the oldest and certainly the best of golf courses is obvious.”
-- Goddard, David (2011-10-24). Colonizing Southampton (Excelsior Editions) (p. 247). State University of New York Press.
The reason it was so obviously advantageous was because it was right there, adjacent to the development, and because it would draw potential customers for both the Inn and the building lots.
2. In both the long post and in this most recent one, Mike claims that SHPB "considered [the NGLA property] worthless." He is of course taking CBM's description of the pre-purchase property out of context.
In fact, the SHPB considered the land quite valuable, especially once CBM determined to build what SHPB hyped as the finest golf course in the world on the property. The golf course enhanced the value of the entire development, including the rest of Sebonac Neck, and SHPB was well aware of this even before the sale was final. Look at CBM's Jan. 1, 1912 letter, where CBM noted that SHPB was reluctant to sell CBM land currently occupied by the pro shop for less than $1000 per acre, and that SHPB had received bids for the land adjacent to the current pro shop of over $1000 per acre. Or again, see their advertisements, and the quote by their President from late 1906 where he stated, "The advantage to your property of having located there two of the oldest and certainly the best of golf courses is obvious.”
Thanks to the NGLA deal, the value to the SHPB development was "obvious." To everyone but Mike.
-
David,
Good to see that you have a copy of the Goddard book. It's pretty well done.
Of course there was perceived value in having a golf course there even if it didn't work out so well, the company going bankrupt by the early 1920s.. The comments i mentioned from CBM about everyone thinkng the land was worthless were related to housing lots as that area was overgrown and had never been surveyed. Read the August 1907 article I just posted that describe the conditions at that time
It sounds like they could have done an episode of "Naked and Afraid" there even by that date! ;)
If the value of the land was so obvious why didn't they just subdivide the rest of Sebonac Neck that CBM didn't use that actually WAS adjacent to NGLA and is today Sebonack Golf Club?
-
The price CBM offered may have been identical, but only one of those offers was accepted. That says something.
Yes, it tells me that they believed the land near the Shinnecock Canal had much higher value and better proximity and accessibility for building lots than the land they thought more or less worthless on Sebonac Neck. Would you agree?
-
The price CBM offered may have been identical, but only one of those offers was accepted. That says something.
Yes, it tells me that they believed the land near the Shinnecock Canal had much higher value and better proximity and accessibility for building lots than the land they thought more or less worthless on Sebonac Neck. Would you agree?
I don't think anyone is arguing that point (except for the last part of that sentence).
But to claim that they were both available to CBM at the same price per acre is faulty logic.
-
It wasn't worthless with regard to housing lots, either. Not-yet-subdivided does not equal worthless. From the developer's perspective, even the prospect of the golf course brought value to the entire development including the Sebonac Neck property. By 1911 the developer was being offered over $1000 per acre for land that you claim was worthless.
-
Mike I see you completely rewrote your post while I was typing mine. I guess I'll have to start using quotes with your posts.
If the value of the land was so obvious why didn't they just subdivide the rest of Sebonac Neck that CBM didn't use that actually WAS adjacent to NGLA and is today Sebonack Golf Club?
Because, like virtually all developers of large parcels, they were developing their property in phases.
And because, shortly thereafter, CBM's pal bought the entire 300+ acre parcel for his summer residence (or what you'd call his "cabin.")
-
David,
Macdonald ' s "pal" Charles Sabin purchased that land in 1916.
I have a hard time understanding how a decade is a short time in the Real Estate world? Wouldn't the Real Estate company have sought to maximize their opportunity to create lots adjacent to the golf course along the length of it given how they all suddenly saw the value of that property after previously considering it worthless according to Macdonald?
-
According to CBM, the developer had offers on Sebonac Neck land adjacent to NGLA of over $1000/AC around 1911. Then around 1916 the developer sold that entire Sebonac Neck property to Sabin. That seems like a pretty short time in real estate development terms to me, but I really don't care whether you think it short or not. My points remain the same regardless.
Besides, it doesn't matter what you think or what I think, it matters what the developer thought:
1. In the opinion of the developer in 1906-1907, the creation of NGLA would greatly enhance the value of the entire development, including the NGLA parcel and the entire Sebonic Neck property. If you've read Goddard, read CBM's 1912 statement, and read the advertisements, then you know that the developer didn't think the property was "worthless" given that CBM was planning NGLA.
So why are you pretending that the developer thought the property was worthless?
2. Likewise, you know that NGLA was to start and finish at the Inn, which was part of the development, and that the development itself was adjacent to the Inn and the golf course. You know that the roads built by the development went right to the Inn and the developers improvements were focused on the Inn. You know that course was was right there, and that in the developer's opinion in 1906-1907 the course's location was a major enhancement to the development.
So why are you pretending that the course wasn't right there?
These are the types of issues that make these discussions with you so frustrating. You implore me to treat you with respect and then you play these silly games, arguing for days that the golf course wasn't next to the development when it was treated as a feature of the development itself.
-
Here is some more information, from what looks to me like a very reliable source, about the history of the clubhouse at NGLA.
I think your unnamed "reliable source" is unreliable.
Would you care to name him/it ?
They were playing the course in 1909, and that included playing the current 1st and 18th holes, between which is where the clubhouse sits
In the summer of 1910, two years after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, Macdonald finally decided that he wanted to build his clubhouse on the site where it sits today, on a hill overlooking Peconic Bay.
It appears that in 1910 that he did not own the site on which the clubhouse is sited.
That's pure unadulterated nonsense.
They owned the land and were playing the current 1st and 18th holes.
Or is it your position that they were playing golf in 1909 on land that CBM/NGLA didn't own ? ? ?
Macdonald stated that they took title to the property in the Spring of 1907 and held an informal event in 1909, when John Ward played the holes (today's first 4 holes) in 2-2-4-2..
Macdonald also stated that he won his flight with a one up victory over Robert Watson, meaning that they had to play all 18 holes.
Which means that all of the land that presently constitutes the current golf course was owned by CBM/NGLA in 1909.
To maintain that CBM/NGLA didn't own the land between # 1 and # 18 is ...............
The Realty Co offered to sell him the 2.5 acre site where the clubhouse now sits, but only as a site for the clubhouse.
After some negotiation he bought the parcel of land and assisted by a committee had the clubhouse built over the summer of 1911 and completed by September. They tried to fund the clubhouse through the issuance of debentures.
"Only as a site for the clubhouse" ?
What else could it be, the golf course, including the 1st and 18th holes were already built.
The fact that he didn't own the clubhouse site in 1910 throws a wrench in my understanding of what property he did buy in 1906-07.
That's NOT a fact.
That's an allegation by an unnamed source, one probably from the Philadelphia area if I was to make a guess.
Did they buy property with a lot in the middle withheld, or did the property not originally go as far west as the current 18th green and 1st tee?
Read Scotland's gift for clarification.
They owned the land that included the 1st and 18th holes.
At any rate, it appears certain that this site for the clubhouse is not where he always intended it be. If it was, I imagine that he would have thought to buy the site as part of the original land deal in 1906.
It was were it was always intended to be and they did buy it in the original land deal in 1907.
Your unnamed source is incorrect.
Hey, it happens
P.S. I'll be back
-
Very interesting Bryan. It would be fascinating to find the original metes and bounds but the routing extended to the current first and 18th holes from the get go, as depicted in the Aug 1907 article showing the routing.
Mike,
My god man, you'll jump at and support any fabrication that supports your wild theories.
In 1909 NGLA's routing included the current 1st and 18th holes.
But, don't take my word for it, take CBM's.
-
Re the roads situation, I have crudely overlaid the 1904 topo onto the modern Google aerial and marked the improved roads in red and the unimproved around Sebonac Neck in orange(Yellow). I also marked the location of the Shinnecock Inn. Looks like the SI site was surrounded by a triangle of unimproved dirt tracks in 1904. Presumably the developer hardened at least one of those tracks for automobile traffic when they built the Inn.
Mike, did you not read Bryan's article from March, 1908 stating that in addition to the three new roads, that a previous highway system had already been built.
Here's Bryan's article.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7771/17159254123_f327c4ff22_o.jpg)
There were a number of tracks into the NGLA site that probably would have been sufficient, without improvement, for construction activities, at least in decent weather. I still wonder why there were those tracks up in the Neck in 1904 when there are no structures up there and nothing down to the north side of the tracks except for the SHGC clubhouse. Where did those tracks go to through the brambles and who would have used them. The supposedly better properties for cottages and beaches were all supposed to be south of the tracks.
Mike, if you were familiar with the area you'd know that they go exactly where they go today, to the Peconic Bay.
Remember, in 1905 NGLA was private property and undeveloped..
I'm not so sure that the shoreline road was "brambles" as you suggest.
My guess is that the road leading to Peconic Bay was for fishing, the beach and perhaps boating.
It would provide access to the clubhouse site.
What remains unanswered is where was the site CBM originally intended for his clubhouse near the Shinnecock Inn. It looks like there were dirt tracks that could have been improved right there to serve a clubhouse site. The new Shinnecock Inn was supposed to be electrified, so availability of electricity at that site might have been a consideration too.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
Bryan,
Thanks for providing that map.
I came upon this 1905 Automobile Club Map that is interesting to compare and contrast.
Interestingly, it doesn't appear to show any roads passable by automobile up into the NGLA property.
Of course it does.
You're looking to far to the East/Northeast.
For reasons of my interest, it also doesn't show any roadways of signfiicance north of the railroad tracks going back to the Shinnecock Canal that would have negatively impacted CBM's first choice for his ideal golf course near there.
I think what fairly could be said, which I've tried to point out despite attempts to shout me down, is that this area was a work in progress, a "moving picture" between the years of 1905 when the Real Estate company bought the land, CBM's subsequent failed attempt to secure 120 acres, the securing of 200 acres of Sebonac Neck property in late 1906, and soft opening of the course in 1910.
But, we know that CBM bought 205 acres for NGLA in 1907
And we know that wagons/trucks made 20,000 trips to an from NGLA on roads that could accomodate heavy loads of dirt.
Somewhat futilely, in my opinion, the discussion keeps getting sidetracked with silly things like what year the Dump Truck got invented (around 1907-08) and whether they would have been deployed, when Macdonald never mentioned using trucks in the first place.
It doesn't matter if he mentioned dump trucks, trucks or wagons, 20,000 trips were made to and from NGLA on roads that would accomodate those vehicles.
And, of those 20,000 trips, 10,000 were made with those vehicles carrying heavy loads of dirt.
Mike, you're looking at the wrong area.
NGLA is next to Cold Spring Inlet, NOT Sebonac Neck.
The entire North-South road along Sebonac Creek and Bullhead Bay is adjacent to NGLA, giving ample access to the golf course.
I'm surprised at you ;D
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7692/17652715096_af017845fc_b.jpg)
-
To whomever it may concern re the GIS Viewer topo map I posted:
You should be more careful with what you rely on for your information.
Why didn't you take Bryan to task for posting a gross misrepresentation.
why you didn't you take Bryan Izatt to task for posting flawed information.
For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County. Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction. I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does. If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east. So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane. Perhaps it is all still a public road. I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.
That's easy.
White's Lane ENDS where those grey buildings appear in the lower portion of the map.
That's the old maintenance shed.
The road in the county GIS labeled White's Lane is the private driveway leading to the NGLA clubhouse.
Access to the original clubhouse was via White's Lane, which is no longer an, as you say, improved road.
It's basically a dirt cart path beyond the old maintenance shed.
In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map and as factual about the road's name. I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.
I now understand the phrase, "ignorance is bliss"
Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.
If you had ever been to NGLA you'd know that I'm right and that your source map is wrong.
A private driveway that ends in a circle at the clubhouse entrance is a driveway, not a thoroughfare or road and definitely not White's Lane.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17438093199_a1a5fcf3a4_o.jpg)
-
For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County.
Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction.
I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does.
You're WRONG again.
There is NO street, only a driveway on private property.
Do you now think that the county is naming driveways ?
Go to Google Maps for verification
Google Maps is more factual than the County GIS Viewer?! :o Back to the dunce corner for you.
Yes, in this instance it is.
White's Lane in the County GIS is a DRIVEWAY, not a thoroughfare, not a road or street.
A driveway that ends in a circle at the front entrance to the clubhouse.
Now why don't you look at Google Maps, or Google Earth and see where White's lane begins and ends.
It has NO connection to the driveway at NGLA
If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east.
No, it doesn't.
It ends in the maintenance area.
Just look at Google Maps and Google Earth for verification.
105 years ago that was the original entrance to the clubhouse.
At that location you will find the original entrance gate confirming same when you make the left off of Sebonac Inlet Rd into White's Lane.
So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane.
NO, the county doesn't consider the whole road to be White's lane.
The road (White's Lane) ends at the old maintainance shed.
It does NOT continue past the old maintenance sheds as you would say, as an "improved" road.
It's basically a dirt cart path and does NOT connect to the driveway.
You would know that if you ever visited NGLA
Then why did they label it that way?.
You'd have to ask them
Why don't you get a statement from the County to prove your opinion.
I don't need to.
Anyone who's been to NGLA knows that I'm correct
Why don't you look at Google Earth for verification.
And, as you enter NGLA from Sebonac Inlet Rd, the massive gates greet you along with notices that it's private property.
When I'm there next I'll take pictures for you.
No need. I know what the sign says. Whether the road is private or not does not mean it is not named in County records.
But, it's not a road.
It's a private driveway.
Why don't you look at Google Earth to get an idea as to what you're talking about.
The road you claim is White's Lane is on private property.
It is the driveway leading to the clubhouse and NOT a public road.
Obviously, you've never been there to see for yourself[/size]
Shrubland Road crosses private property but is a public road..
Not True.
Shrubland Road does NOT cross private property.
It separates private property.
Again, if you had been to NGLA you would know that.
The Google Maps source you rely on shows two named roads, Rd C and E Rd, running down the middle of NGLA.
Because Google names them does that mean they're public?[/size]
There are NO roads "C" and "E"
There are paths, basically cart paths, but, no roads, so perhaps your source needs to update it's files.
Perhaps it is all still a public road.
It is NOT a public road.
It's on private property and is the club's driveway. [/size]
I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.
Anyone who has been to NGLA knows it's private property and the driveway into the club.
But, please feel free to keep insisting that it's a public road.
I like it when you're wrong but redouble your efforts. ;D
Perhaps you missed the word "perhaps". Good to see you bite. Good thing you can type fast without reading and understanding. By the way, roads on private land are not named on Long Island?
Wow, you sure tricked me with the word "perhaps"
Once again, it's a private driveway, not a road.
You already acknowledged that the sign next to the entrance states that it's private property, and I'll foolishly assume that you know the difference between a driveway and a road. Please view Google Earth for verification, unless you think Google Earth is as flawed as Google Maps
In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map and as factual about the road's name.
I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.
You can rely upon the SCGISV all you want.
The road you allege is a public road is a private driveway.
I said perhaps to bait you. You bit. What does that have to do with the factual basis of the SCGISV, as you call it.
WOW, again your mastery at baiting and debating comes to the fore.
Please look at Google Earth, then get back to us.
Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.
Too bad that Google Maps and Google Earth agrees with me.
Zero in on the driveway and let me know if it says White's Lane, OR, if White's Lane enters the property by the 13th hole.
Too bad you missed the point - again.
At some point you're going to have to admit that I'm right and that you and your Suffolk County GIS Viewer are wrong..
I think in good conscience that you had better tell Suffolk County that they are wrong and that they'd better get together with Google to get it right. I wonder (not really) where you think Google gets the information that it put on it's maps?
So you're of the opinion that government agencies never make mistakes ?
Like mistaking a driveway from a road ?
Do you have the fortitude to do that ?
My argument is factually correct and you've obviously been led down the wrong path, and a private one at that
No, unfortunately you've relied on a flawed, outdated source.
Hey, it happens.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17438093199_a1a5fcf3a4_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
You're baaaaaaack. I could tell from the flood of green phosphor. ;D
...........................
The fact that he didn't own the clubhouse site in 1910 throws a wrench in my understanding of what property he did buy in 1906-07.
That's NOT a fact.
That's an allegation by an unnamed source, one probably from the Philadelphia area if I was to make a guess.
The source material said that Macdonald didn't own the site where the current clubhouse sits. It was stated as fact.
Earlier in the thread you said that if someone couldn't refute your opinion, then your opinion had to be treated as fact. So, back to you. Refute this claim or treat it as fact. By the way, David and Sven have offered opinions on why this fact can't be right. Their opinions make some sense. But they do not completely refute this claim. The deeds would.
Sorry to disappoint you but the source is not from the Philadelphia area. You should ask your anonymous NGLA source.
Did they buy property with a lot in the middle withheld, or did the property not originally go as far west as the current 18th green and 1st tee?
Read Scotland's gift for clarification.
They owned the land that included the 1st and 18th holes.
I said that the source I had said that NGLA didn't own the clubhouse site - I said nothing about the 1st and 18th holes.
I suppose it would surprise you to know that part of the 1st tee was on Realty Co. land originally.
I guess it would also surprise you to know that SHGC recently built a new 3rd tee that infringed on NGLA property. Apparently even in the 21st century things get built on land that isn't owned.
At any rate, it appears certain that this site for the clubhouse is not where he always intended it be. If it was, I imagine that he would have thought to buy the site as part of the original land deal in 1906.
It was were it was always intended to be and they did buy it in the original land deal in 1907.
Your unnamed source is incorrect.
Could be, but until we find the deeds to prove where the 2.5 acres they bought in 1910 for the clubhouse actually was, we don't know for sure.
Hey, it happens
P.S. I'll be back
-
Patrick,
Did you leave your brain somewhere over the weekend and forget to bring it back with you? ;)
Reread the article - you don't seem to understand it.
You seem confused about who, Mike or I, wrote what below.
and, btw, the Automobile Club misplaced Sebonac Neck on their map. That's really Cow Neck. You do know that, don't you? ;D
Re the roads situation, I have crudely overlaid the 1904 topo onto the modern Google aerial and marked the improved roads in red and the unimproved around Sebonac Neck in orange(Yellow). I also marked the location of the Shinnecock Inn. Looks like the SI site was surrounded by a triangle of unimproved dirt tracks in 1904. Presumably the developer hardened at least one of those tracks for automobile traffic when they built the Inn.
Mike, did you not read Bryan's article from March, 1908 stating that in addition to the three new roads, that a previous highway system had already been built.
Here's Bryan's article.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7771/17159254123_f327c4ff22_o.jpg)
There were a number of tracks into the NGLA site that probably would have been sufficient, without improvement, for construction activities, at least in decent weather. I still wonder why there were those tracks up in the Neck in 1904 when there are no structures up there and nothing down to the north side of the tracks except for the SHGC clubhouse. Where did those tracks go to through the brambles and who would have used them. The supposedly better properties for cottages and beaches were all supposed to be south of the tracks.
Mike, if you were familiar with the area you'd know that they go exactly where they go today, to the Peconic Bay.
Remember, in 1905 NGLA was private property and undeveloped..
I'm not so sure that the shoreline road was "brambles" as you suggest.
My guess is that the road leading to Peconic Bay was for fishing, the beach and perhaps boating.
It would provide access to the clubhouse site.
What remains unanswered is where was the site CBM originally intended for his clubhouse near the Shinnecock Inn. It looks like there were dirt tracks that could have been improved right there to serve a clubhouse site. The new Shinnecock Inn was supposed to be electrified, so availability of electricity at that site might have been a consideration too.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
Bryan,
Thanks for providing that map.
I came upon this 1905 Automobile Club Map that is interesting to compare and contrast.
Interestingly, it doesn't appear to show any roads passable by automobile up into the NGLA property.
Of course it does.
You're looking to far to the East/Northeast.
For reasons of my interest, it also doesn't show any roadways of signfiicance north of the railroad tracks going back to the Shinnecock Canal that would have negatively impacted CBM's first choice for his ideal golf course near there.
I think what fairly could be said, which I've tried to point out despite attempts to shout me down, is that this area was a work in progress, a "moving picture" between the years of 1905 when the Real Estate company bought the land, CBM's subsequent failed attempt to secure 120 acres, the securing of 200 acres of Sebonac Neck property in late 1906, and soft opening of the course in 1910.
But, we know that CBM bought 205 acres for NGLA in 1907
And we know that wagons/trucks made 20,000 trips to an from NGLA on roads that could accomodate heavy loads of dirt.
Somewhat futilely, in my opinion, the discussion keeps getting sidetracked with silly things like what year the Dump Truck got invented (around 1907-08) and whether they would have been deployed, when Macdonald never mentioned using trucks in the first place.
It doesn't matter if he mentioned dump trucks, trucks or wagons, 20,000 trips were made to and from NGLA on roads that would accomodate those vehicles.
And, of those 20,000 trips, 10,000 were made with those vehicles carrying heavy loads of dirt.
Mike, you're looking at the wrong area.
NGLA is next to Cold Spring Inlet, NOT Sebonac Neck.
The entire North-South road along Sebonac Creek and Bullhead Bay is adjacent to NGLA, giving ample access to the golf course.
I'm surprised at you ;D
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7692/17652715096_af017845fc_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Now I'm worried about you. :o This was more than 100 posts ago and you've already spewed forth on this. Is this a better response than your last one from before your lost weekend.
And, you're still wrong.
To whomever it may concern re the GIS Viewer topo map I posted:
You should be more careful with what you rely on for your information.
Why didn't you take Bryan to task for posting a gross misrepresentation.
why you didn't you take Bryan Izatt to task for posting flawed information.
For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County. Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction. I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does. If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east. So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane. Perhaps it is all still a public road. I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.
That's easy.
White's Lane ENDS where those grey buildings appear in the lower portion of the map.
That's the old maintenance shed.
The road in the county GIS labeled White's Lane is the private driveway leading to the NGLA clubhouse.
Access to the original clubhouse was via White's Lane, which is no longer an, as you say, improved road.
It's basically a dirt cart path beyond the old maintenance shed.
In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map and as factual about the road's name. I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.
I now understand the phrase, "ignorance is bliss"
Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.
If you had ever been to NGLA you'd know that I'm right and that your source map is wrong.
A private driveway that ends in a circle at the clubhouse entrance is a driveway, not a thoroughfare or road and definitely not White's Lane.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17438093199_a1a5fcf3a4_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Re post #413. I couldn't help but laugh when I read it. You've risen to new heights of absurd logic.
Long live Google Earth (or was that Google Maps?) the ultimate authority on all geographical things.
The GIS Viewer is a nice topo map application. Too bad that got lost in your rants about road naming. :( :'(
-
Re the two articles below - these things always lead me to wonder.
One article says that the bluff at the 8th green is 80 feet above Peconic Bay. The other says that the clubhouse sits 150 feet above the Bay. Now, by the time CBM had the blueprint (whenever that was) he had the elevations on the course and he knew that the highest elevation anywhere on the property was 57 feet. The highest point is on the 2nd fairway across from the Sahara bunker. It was then and it is still today. How can the news reports so grossly exaggerate the elevations?
One other thing from the first article below. It states that the 9th tee is the most westerly point of play while leading in to talk about the 10th hole. Presumably they meant the 10th tee.
Also in that article, it says that the 9th hole starts slightly north of west and then in the last third of the hole "dipping well to the southward". The description seems to be of a dogleg left. That doesn't sound like the current hole. Could the 9th have been initially routed differently than we think. It has been said that the course played shorter in the tentative 1909-10 time frame. Would some of that shortening have been around the 9th and 10th? I don't know, just some questions.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5459/17644900340_ba5683d43c_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5452/17830970892_722c636f15_b.jpg)
-
One more newspaper report of a real estate transaction for NGLA - this one in November 10, 1911 from the County Review. Why did they buy 4 acres and where was it? And, why did this valuable land sell for only $200 for 4 acres.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5449/17662100610_80437e4566_z.jpg)
-
And, two other interesting snippets from the County Review. The first from December 13, 1912. Environmental (or was it commercial) considerations in 1912?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7725/17849636205_df47603730.jpg)
And, the other also from the County Review on May 3, 1907 - Mortimer Payne hired "to lay out" the course.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8843/17227119934_cb4cb59289.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Cool, thanks.
What day was the Payne article?
-
Bryan,
It is difficult to tell from that line drawing two weeks later whether the 18th was routed slightly differently prior to the clubhouse. From the writer's description, it sounds odd but perhaps the author had contracted malaria with high fever by that point of his tour of the course. ;)
-
__________________________________________________________
Jeff,
There is a very simple explanation as to why CBM didn't take 1.5AC of land within NGLA - He wanted a 200 acre estate and bought one right next door.
Applying your same logic, there is a very simple explanation of why CBM never carved out 60-70 residential lots out of the NGLA property --He wanted from the beginning to use the entire parcel for a golf course.
You know there is no connection between the two logically.
I am not sure how you can look at that graphic and claim the border hugs the golf course in its entirety. You seem to be ignoring it to make your point. It does everywhere but the 17th, where there is an extra 60-90 yards of land from the edge of the fairway. CBM said there was extra land after the fact, the map shows extra land by 17, so really, that has to be what he was talking about, no?
Again, Jeff, you are misunderstanding my position. What I said was that the eastern border was locked by the physical characteristics of the property (Peconic Bay, Bullshead Bay, Shinnecock GC), and it had already been determined by mid December 1906. CBM only had room to manipulate the border to the west, and the eastern border fits snugly to property.
Your mistake notwithstanding (about east and west) how is my question misunderstanding your position? Why is it relevant? I asked two simple questions - 1) do you see the 60-90 yards of land near 17 not used for golf? (2 Do you think this is the surplus land CBM mentioned in 1912? One of the reasons these things go 20 pages or more (yes, I am confident that this will do that!) is that you manage to talk past any direct point that might refute your position, by misdirection. Just do as you ask Mike to do, answer the damn question! :)
[/color]
-
Bryan:
It would be helpful if you could provide full citations for the articles you posted.
Thanks,
Sven
-
And, the other also from the County review in 1907 - Mortimer Payne hired "to lay out" the course.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8843/17227119934_cb4cb59289.jpg)
Bryan,
I had the same thought as you last night. I checked Bahto's book and he notes Raynor was hired first, then Payne. However, both were hired in 1907 according to George, not 1906. David had suggested maybe Raynor was out there surveying in the summer of 1906, but this makes it seem unlikely. I would guess CBM gave him the maps, had him do the surveys, etc. in January 1907, right after securing the option, although David did say that some articles said that topo maps had already been done in 1906. I can't recall seeing those posted in this thread, but must have been posted in the last marathon.
It also notes that CBM made his third trip abroad sometime in 1906 to "finalize his research" which sounds like making the last of his hole notes, etc., but we can't be sure.
Also, Raynor was hired as a "local surveyor" in 1907, but then "retained" later in 1907 at the first seeding of NGLA greens. Not exactly sure the differences in wording, but almost sounds like he was commissioned as a surveying firm first, then brought in as an employee of sorts, but usually, the wording would be reversed in modern day - an employee is hired, a consultant is retained.
Again, it seems like the historical record can be very muddled. Suggesting of course, we need no more intentional muddying......
-
More about Roads, Course Readiness, the purpose of the first "soft opening" in 1910 and related matters as published in "Brooklyn Life". Note...all are accurately attributed. :)
May 18, 1907
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/17672656819_8b37709696_b.jpg)
September 21, 1907
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5328/17671474080_c4dfa8c44d_b.jpg)
April 16, 1910
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8847/17671568600_bc45ca2845_b.jpg)
July 16, 1910
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7782/17859138465_f75ff39ed7_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Looking at it again, it does appear that the 18th at NGLA (original 9th) was a dogleg left towards the 1st tee, so perhaps our intrepid reporter wasn't hallucinating after all.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8793/17237027984_cb3a6d45d1_b.jpg)
-
Mike:
I see no discernible difference between the stick figure routing and the more detailed routing map used on the scorecard or the original plaster model.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Scorecard_zps2ppcowpr.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20Right_zpsunxm9unr.jpg)
-
Pat,
I'm really not sure why you're still discussing roads? First, there were no major roadways north of the train tracks that would have impacted CBM's first choice for a site near the Shinnecock Canal. As regards roads going up into the NGLA property, perhaps you missed what Bernard Darwin wrote, which I'll reproduce again below;
"At first the only access to the clubhouse was over an old, uncared-for, rough, rutted, and sandy road, over which the farmers of the former day had carted seaweed and sedge, when those things were considered valuable. The services of Mr. Seth J. Raynor were again called into requisition and he laid out a beautiful drive, which has been graded and oiled and placed in first class condition and now is ready access to the clubhouse at full speed over one of the best and pleasantest roads in the vicinity. What would those old seaweed haulers say if they should appear some day and see this road and the new, speedy vehicles that are used on it." - as reproduced in "The Evangelist of Golf"
Here is a "good road" on Long Island at the time, from a photo a took of Bradley Klein's terrific book, "Building Sebonack". I'm not sure if you can read the caption but it says, "Early day car travel in the Hamptons was an adventure on unpaved, rutted roads."
Check out the tire imprints in about six inches of sand.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8775/17833124036_774cdb27ff_b.jpg)
-
Sven,
You're correct, I believe. I just think it's deceiving the way it's drawn on the stick figure as almost a reverse-C dogleg left.
Looking at it on Google Earth, it does indeed turn southward as the author describes, although one would hardly get that feeling from being on the course and playing the hole, where you feel that the cliff is uncomfortably close to the third shot.
-
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8843/17227119934_cb4cb59289.jpg)
Bryan,
I had the same thought as you last night. I checked Bahto's book and he notes Raynor was hired first, then Payne. However, both were hired in 1907 according to George, not 1906. David had suggested maybe Raynor was out there surveying in the summer of 1906, but this makes it seem unlikely. I would guess CBM gave him the maps, had him do the surveys, etc. in January 1907, right after securing the option, although David did say that some articles said that topo maps had already been done in 1906. I can't recall seeing those posted in this thread, but must have been posted in the last marathon.
It also notes that CBM made his third trip abroad sometime in 1906 to "finalize his research" which sounds like making the last of his hole notes, etc., but we can't be sure.
Also, Raynor was hired as a "local surveyor" in 1907, but then "retained" later in 1907 at the first seeding of NGLA greens. Not exactly sure the differences in wording, but almost sounds like he was commissioned as a surveying firm first, then brought in as an employee of sorts, but usually, the wording would be reversed in modern day - an employee is hired, a consultant is retained.
Again, it seems like the historical record can be very muddled. Suggesting of course, we need no more intentional muddying......
Jeff,
The article Bryan found and posted was from May 10th, 1907, so apparently when Macdonald told reporters in mid-December 1906 that the next five months would be spent selecting the holes, routing and planning the golf course prior to construction he meant what he said.
Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906.
-
Sven,
The postings have been modified to include the full citations.
-
Mike:
You know that they had already identified a good number of the hole locations, including the Cape, Redan, Alps, Eden, etc., amongst other holes, as described by CBM. The "amongst others" is a key point made by David that gets glossed over quite a bit, but CBM's words indicate that they had identified more holes than those that were specifically described by name.
The course may not have been completely planned, but they had a very good idea about where certain holes would be located and where the southern end of the course would be. CBM's description of the narrow 4 mile long site stretching up to Peconic Bay also gives us a good idea that he was contemplating an out and back routing.
I think the course was a lot closer to being planned than you give credit for in your last post. There were details to be worked out, and holes to be fitted in, but in general what CBM described in Dec. 1906 was basically what would be seen in that first routing map.
Sven
The Evening Telegram - Dec. 17, 1906
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20-%20The%20Evening%20Telegram%20Dec.%2017%201906_zps2p0pwgit.png)
-
Mike:
You know that they had already identified a good number of the hole locations, including the Cape, Redan, Alps, Eden, etc., amongst other holes, as described by CBM. The "amongst others" is a key point made by David that gets glossed over quite a bit, but CBM's words indicate that they had identified more holes than those that were specifically described by name.
The course may not have been completely planned, but they had a very good idea about where certain holes would be located and where the southern end of the course would be. CBM's description of the narrow 4 mile long site stretching up to Peconic Bay also gives us a good idea that he was contemplating an out and back routing.
I think the course was a lot closer to being planned than you give credit for in your last post. There were details to be worked out, and holes to be fitted in, but in general what CBM described in Dec. 1906 was basically what would be seen in that first routing map.
Sven
The Evening Telegram - Dec. 17, 1906
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20-%20The%20Evening%20Telegram%20Dec.%2017%201906_zps2p0pwgit.png)
Sven,
Yes, and the holes they found based on landforms (and water hazards) were closely grouped, in the sense that the Alps hill and redan plateau are close to each other and once CBM found a site for his Eden green (where he wanted a water carry) he evidently turned and found the idea for the Cape.
I think they were looking for landforms for ideal holes but that's a ways from a full routing, or planning all of the holes in detail, thanks.
-
David,
Perhaps I can help clear up your frustration.
Yes, the proposed development put together by Olmsted and Vaux for the Real Estate company “adjoined” NGLA, but only in the strictest sense of touching a single point along a boundary. However, the vast majority of the land adjoining NGLA was not part of that Real Estate plan.
How little of that proposed development actually touched the course can best be seen in this aerial from Brad Klein’s terrific book, “Building Sebonack”. Here, one can see out across the entire NGLA course, and virtually all of the land bordering the course (on the right in this picture where land for Sebonack Golf Course had been cleared) was available for the Real Estate company to sub-divide for building lots but they chose not to. In the far distance near today’s 9th green and beyond was the planned development as well as the Shinnecock Inn.
Macdonald told us that everyone thought the land was more or less “worthless”. It was worthless for farming, and apparently it was so overgrown and bug-infested that it was considered worthless for housing development, possibly because of the anticipated cost to clear it.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/17239114023_fcd5d47d5b_b.jpg)
Whatever price the Real Estate company wanted to charge Macdonald for his 2.5 acre addition (at least $1,000 an acre they said, and told him they’d gotten offers for more), it sounds like a negotiating ploy. It wasn’t until 1917 that they finally got a buyer (Charles H. Sabin) for the 300 odd acres next door (today's Sebonack GC) that had never been surveyed for housing. I’ve yet to find a purchase price for that transaction but maybe you can because I’ve got a flight to catch this afternoon.
As for the overall question of the golf course adding value to the surrounding Real Estate development, unfortunately that never happened, at least not quickly enough t help the Real Estate company.
As related in Goddard’s book over 90% of the planned lots never sold.
”A comparison of the Olmsted and Vaux survey map of 1906 with a similar map put ut for auction purposes in 1925 is instructive in this respect…It shows virtually no land sales. The eighty blocks covering thirteen hundred acres in the middle of the Hills were almost completely or more than 90 percent unsold.”
As far as appreciating land values as a direct result of the golf course, that didn’t happen either, or at least some speculation in the 1920s that drove prices higher didn’t survive long-term. The book later reports, ”The Hills thereafter languished through the 1930s and 1940s and prices fell back to almost nineteenth-century levels.”
Hope that helps.
-
Finally, I came upon this little oddity from June 13, 1920 in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. I'm not sure what to make of it but I'd sure love to find the metes and bounds of the original purchase of 205 acres.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/17859608482_4161c60ed5_b.jpg)
-
Mike:
It was a matter of connecting the dots.
Dot A - The site of the Shinnecock Inn
Dot B - The location of the Cape and Eden
Dot C - The location of the Alps and Redan
Dot D - Peconic Bay frontage
Dot E, F, G... - The location of any other unnamed already identified holes.
We both agree that there were details to be worked out and gaps to be filled, but the corridor was there. My guess is that he had not yet figured out exactly how the northern end of the property would work, but he did envision the course extending along the various coastal areas described in the article.
My read on CBM's description of "distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee" is that he wanted to confer with the other "experts" to draw the full range of ideas into the plan before proceeding with the plaster model. There was a reason why he had brought in Travis, Emmet and Whigham.
Sven
-
Sven,
Agreed in concept, but think coming up with a finalized routing and all hole conceptions was more complicated and time-consuming than we know based on how overgrown the property was before it was cleared sometime in 1907. The article I posted yesterday from mid-August of that year makes it sound like it was still a bit of a safari at that point. Thanks.
-
Mike,
The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre). CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse. So he paid the asking price.
-
Sven,
If CBM knew where landforms were that he wanted to use for at least 4 holes in December 1906 and that he wanted to start near the Shinnecock Inn and go as far as Peconic Bay, how many months do you think it would take to connect the dots (as you say) to come up with a routing plan before construction could begin? Given that he was trying to design his ideal course and apply a lot of template holes to the property in some kind of coherent routing, it can't have been a quick job. Was he not working at his regular day job during this timeframe too.
-
Sven,
Agreed in concept, but think coming up with a finalized routing and all hole conceptions was more complicated and time-consuming than we know based on how overgrown the property was before it was cleared sometime in 1907. The article I posted yesterday from mid-August of that year makes it sound like it was still a bit of a safari at that point. Thanks.
Mike:
In Piper & Oakley, CBM notes they were cutting brush throughout the summer.* Where would they have known to cut the brush if they didn't already have the routing in place?
Its pretty basic, they weren't going to do more work than they had to.
Sven
*I assume this was the summer of 1907, because we know that by the summer of 1908 they already had the course in place.
-
Sven,
If CBM knew where landforms were that he wanted to use for at least 4 holes in December 1906 and that he wanted to start near the Shinnecock Inn and go as far as Peconic Bay, how many months do you think it would take to connect the dots (as you say) to come up with a routing plan before construction could begin? Given that he was trying to design his ideal course and apply a lot of template holes to the property in some kind of coherent routing, it can't have been a quick job. Was he not working at his regular day job during this timeframe too.
Bryan:
I'm not in the camp that believes the details were worked out overnight.
I do think that they had a very good idea of the general routing as early as Dec. 1906 (if not earlier), and that they used the first part of 1907 to finalize the plan, including staking out the entire property so that the plaster model (for investor purposes) could be produced. I would guess that once they settled on the land, CBM and others would have spent a great deal of time coming up with a turf plan, as his later writings indicate the amount of preliminary work that went into determining the types of grasses they would use and the treatment of the land necessary to make them grow. So in addition to completing the routing, they were working on other basic course construction issues and setting in place everything they would need to start construction as planned in the late Spring and early Summer of 1907.
I don't think these guys were the type to start actual construction work until they had a pretty darn good idea of what they were actually constructing.
Sven
-
Agreed with your response to me, Sven...I think they had the routing more or less completed when they hired Payne in May 1907.
-
Mike,
The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre). CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse. So he paid the asking price.
Bryan:
You have yet to prove that the 2.5 acres was for the clubhouse. It may have been for the proshop, but that is a different story.
Sven
-
Sven,
I may be mistaken but I believe most of the extensive turfgrass work happened after they lost the first crop somewhere around-1908.
-
Sven,
I may be mistaken but I believe most of the extensive turfgrass work happened after they lost the first crop somewhere around-1908.
Mike:
You really think CBM went into the process not having put a bunch of prep work into determining what kind of grass they would use and how they would treat the sandy turf to make it grow? This included their plan for forming the "humus" and the initial overlay of 140 tons of compost.
They may not have gotten it completely right the first go around, and the drought may have caused them to start over or redo a bunch of the work, but there was a plan in place from the get go.
Read the last paragraph of the article below (New York Daily Tribune - Feb. 3, 1908).
Sven
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20-%20New%20York%20Daily%20Tribune%20Feb.%203%201908_zps4m5h6qbp.png)
-
Sven,
Could be but very little was known about growing good turfgrass in the United States at that time. Some of what McDonald experienced in his failures there help to advance the art for others down the road.
also, in looking at it again I think one discernible difference on the 18th hole as drawn in that stick routing is that the fairway is swinging to the left of the fairway bunker and not the right as it does today. I'm not sure if that's meaningful but it is different.
-
Sure, they learned a lot from the experience, particularly that moisture is very important for certain types of grass during grow in, particularly during the two year period you've prescribed for letting the roots of the brush you've left in the ground rot into a humus that is going to form the base for your fairways.
Go back and read CBM's chapter in Piper & Oakley. He discusses exactly what they planned to do (down to the specific types of grasses), and alludes to the difficulties they faced. All of the prep work would have been site specific. As we know, the ground at NGLA was different from the gravelly turf of its next door neighbor, and thus would have required a different plan of attack.
Its a fairly basic process. (A) Find land that will work, (B) buy the land and (C) develop a specific plan to grow grass on that specific piece of land. You don't do C before A and B, although a big component of C comes into play during the land acquisition period.
As for the configuration of the 18th, if your point is that they had to alter it once they decided to build the clubhouse in the donut, and that proves they didn't originally contemplate the possibility of putting the clubhouse where it is today, there is nothing I've seen to convince me of any component of that argument.
Sven
-
Sven,
I'll go back and read Piper, thanks.
As far as my point about the 18th, I was only pointing out a discernible difference but I'm unclear what it means. I think the fact that both sites were being considered after the fire as that one article pointed out is proof that MacDonald did not "always"want the clubhouse located where it ended up.
-
Sven,
I'll go back and read Piper, thanks.
As far as my point about the 18th, I was only pointing out a discernible difference but I'm unclear what it means. I think the fact that both Clubhouse sites were being considered as that one article pointed out is proof the McDonald did not always want the clubhouse cited where it ended up.
Mike:
I wouldn't put much thought into any differences between a stick figure drawing and a full plaster model of a course.
As for proof of what CBM wanted, you've made yet another giant assumption. It could be that he did always want the permanent clubhouse to be on the north end of the property, but logistics, cost or simply other concerns caused him to consider the southern end after the Inn burned. All we know is that at that point in time he considered both locations.
Sven
-
Your mistake notwithstanding (about east and west) how is my question misunderstanding your position? Why is it relevant? I asked two simple questions - 1) do you see the 60-90 yards of land near 17 not used for golf? (2 Do you think this is the surplus land CBM mentioned in 1912? One of the reasons these things go 20 pages or more (yes, I am confident that this will do that!) is that you manage to talk past any direct point that might refute your position, by misdirection. Just do as you ask Mike to do, answer the damn question! :)
My answer to all of your questions in the order you asked them:
1. You misunderstood my position when you stated that I "claim[ed] the border hugs the golf course in its entirety." What I actually claimed was that it hugs the golf course along the western border, which is the only part where CBM had wiggle room as of mid-December 1906 (or before.)
2. It is relevant in response to your previous theory that CBM staked about a golf course of 180 acres, and then 25 acres near 17 was included to hit the 205 Acre figure. My point is that the land between 17 and Bullshead Bay wasn't included to get to 205. Rather, it had to part of the purchase at this point because the eastern border was locked. It happened to be surplus (along with other snippets) so the Founders presumably controlled its disposition.
3. Yes I see the land next to the 17th. In fact you and I discussed this land earlier in the thread.
4. I think it more likely that CBM was generally referring to all the snippets of land not specifically used for the golf course, including but not limited to the small chunk of land next to the 17th.
5. Interesting theory on why the threads go so long. Might I suggest an alternative theory? One reason these threads go so long is that you keep misrepresenting the positions of others (see No. 1 for example, or the example below about Raynor) and you don't always seem to follow the train of the discussion (see number 2, for example.)
____________________________________________________________
David had suggested maybe Raynor was out there surveying in the summer of 1906, but this makes it seem unlikely.
I made no suggestion that it was Raynor who was out there surveying in the summer of 1906. Raynor was not the only person in America capable of drawing a rough map noting the respective elevations of the features on potential golf holes.
Remember that CBM and Whigham had just spent many months overseas gathering similar information on the great golf holes. Raynor wasn't with them. I don't know if CBM and Whigham were creating the stuff they collected themselves or whether he had someone assisting, but whatever they were doing overseas they could have been doing on NGLA's site.
[ . . . David did say that some articles said that topo maps had already been done in 1906. I can't recall seeing those posted in this thread, but must have been posted in the last marathon.]
Here again is the Oct. 16, 1906 Boston Globe article, which was posted a few pages back.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891)
It also notes that CBM made his third trip abroad sometime in 1906 to "finalize his research" which sounds like making the last of his hole notes, etc., but we can't be sure.
CBM and HJW's trip overseas in 1906 is well documented on this site and elsewhere.
-
Sven,
Except that the statement was that CBM "always intended" the present site for his clubhouse and that is demonstrably untrue. CBM writes that the hole he intended to be his first became the 10th and so on. He even uses the word intended.
-
Jeff,
The article [about the hiring of Mortimer Payne] Bryan found and posted was from May 10th, 1907, so apparently when Macdonald told reporters in mid-December 1906 that the next five months would be spent selecting the holes, routing and planning the golf course prior to construction he meant what he said.
Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906.
I wish you were joking Mike, but experience tells me you are not.
NGLA hired Mortimer Payne "lay out a golf course on it property." He wasn't hired to design it, or to plan it. He was hired to physically lay it out on the land. In other words, in this case, to help construct, sow, and sod it. The plan was already in place.
-
David,
Of course he was hired to construct it beginning May 1907, five months after CBM secured the property and after the planning phase was completed. Why the incredulity?
-
Because the date he was hired tells us absolutely nothing about what planning had taken place before mid-December 1906.
Yet you twist it to claim, "Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906."
That is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.
-
Yet it is completely consistent with what Macdonald said in Dec 1906 that he and his committee would be doing for the next several months.
-
Sven,
Except that the statement was that CBM "always intended" the present site for his clubhouse and that is demonstrably untrue. CBM writes that the hole he intended to be his first became the 10th and so on. He even uses the word intended.
Of course he intended the current 10th to be the 1st. They were using the Inn as the clubhouse.
There is nothing that suggests he wasn't contemplating switching that arrangement once they had the means/wherewithal/focus/ability/necessity to build a permanent structure.
-
Yet it is completely consistent with what Macdonald said in Dec 1906 that he and his committee would be doing for the next several months.
So what? In December 1906 CBM suggested he planned to start to build the golf course in late spring, and he started to build the golf course in late spring. So what?
How in the heck can you go from this to the declaration that "Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906."
-
Because the golf course planning was not completed by December 1906 prior to securing the 205 acres and Macdonald told us that the holes would be decided on and the yardages determined over the next several months. I'm sure you can find the quote because I'm sitting in an airport typing on my phone
I'm not saying no planning took place prior but planning in earnest to determine the holes and route the course was after then.
-
Mike, As for your attempt to help clear up my perception regarding the location of the course and its perceived value, thanks for the effort, but it still seems like you are playing games to me.
It doesn't matter what happened to the development over the next 30 years. What matters is CBM's and the developer's perception at the time:
1. They thought that NGLA would increase the value of the property property throughout the development and on the Neck. (And CBM indicates that this happened at least initially.)
2. They thought that the golf course was adjacent to the NGLA, immediately accessible to NGLA, an important feature of the development itself. They were even planning to share the most important structure on the development and the golf course, the Shinnecock Inn.
So it is unreasonable for you to argue that the parties didn't consider the properties to be right next to each other.
And it is unreasonable to argue that there were no places for building lots close to NGLA.
And it is unreasonable for you to claim that the developer wouldn't have cared if CBM had subdivided his property into 60-70 large lots.
And it is unreasonable for you to contrast the NGLA site with the Canal site in terms of available, because they both had readily accessible building lots.
In short, you seem to be blatantly fudging the facts so as to not have to admit there were convenient and accessible building lots close by, and that the developer had an interest in selling at least some of these to NGLA's members. There were lots, and the developer was interested in the membership's business. You know it, CBM knew it, and the Development knew it.
-
Because the golf course planning was not completed by December 1906 prior to securing the 205 acres and Macdonald told us that the holes would be decided on and the yardages determined over the next several months. I'm sure you can find the quote because I'm sitting in an airport typing on my phone
I'm not saying no planning took place prior but planning in earnest to determine the holes and route the course was after then.
No one ever said the planning was completed before mid-December.
You still haven't explained your declaration that, "Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906."
Why don't you just acknowledge that this is was an absurd claim on your part, and the Payne hiring had nothing to do with the issue, so we can move on.
-
David,
The canal site would have plots bordering on two or three sides the length of the golf course
The Sebonac Neck site touched the boundary of the planned development near today's 9th green. They were so available to the members that virtually none were sold, correct?
Mortimer Payne was hired to build the golf course once months long planning had been completed in May 1907.
-
Irrelevant, Mike.
Were there building lots convenient to NGLA, or not?
Was the developer looking to generate business from NGLA's membership, or not?
____________________________________________
As for Payne, his hiring tells us nothing about what happened in the summer and fall of 1906. You must realize this.
-
No, they obviously weren't convenient enough, apparently.
Agree Payne ' s hiring sheds little on 1906 events but Macdonald told us in Dec what remained to be done over the next several months and Paynes hiring is consistent with that timeframe.
Gotta board.
-
Here again is the Oct. 16, 1906 Boston Globe article, which was posted a few pages back.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891)
It also notes that CBM made his third trip abroad sometime in 1906 to "finalize his research" which sounds like making the last of his hole notes, etc., but we can't be sure.
CBM and HJW's trip overseas in 1906 is well documented on this site and elsewhere.
David,
First, thanks for the answers. Second, I think we can all be accused of not following along, or at least missing the point of several posts. While I have made my mistakes, too, surely your non answers to Mike fit the bill. Mike is quoting CBM directly in those Dec 1906 articles, and it seems pretty straightforward.
As to your October article, thanks again. However, I read that as the topo maps have been prepared but the design work hasn't really started. I would agree that CBM and HJW had made their three day ride by then, and had identified the Alps, Redan, Short, etc. However, most of the articles repeat those little snippets, and say no more. All the comments about design work are that the topo maps have been sent to others, and others will be brought in (note the future tense).
I don't see how you can read it any differently, other than to force your interpretation on it. I have forgotten what other corroborating documents you use to support your theory, but this one seems pretty weak and does not appear to say what you have told us it said. What I can believe is that after the ride sometime in the summer of 1906, CBM or SHPB did hire a surveyor to map the topo. How long do we think that took? In that thicket, maybe a few months? Was CBM working on this every day or week, or did his real job keep this more of hobby secondary avocation that made it take longer than we think it should?
I agree with you that some very basic planning took place in 1906, enough to determine that this was the general land they wanted, and picking some of the holes. It just doesn't appear to me that they got as far as you think they did, which is an honest disagreement of opinion based on sometimes muddled documentation.
In Dec. 1906, CBM says they will start the hard work of finalizing the routing. Again, Mike twisted absolutely nothing, he read it direct for what it said - that the holes will be selected and routing finalized in the next 5 months. Again, I have a hard time putting any other interpretation to it other than to read it for exactly what CBM says.
I can tell you from walking many routings in the woods that connecting natural features you want to use is not a fast process. For example, they wanted to use the hills for the Alps on current hole 3. And, the presumably felt it ought to be a par 4 of certain length. What if they found what they thought was a great tee, but got back to the maps only to find it was 505 yard par 5? Well, they shorten the tee, but then what to do with 2 green, and what hole should be copied with a hole of that new length, etc. I can see exactly why he said they were going to decide on hole lengths and features to copy in that time period. In other words, the 9th inning in a baseball game counts just as much as the 1st inning to the outcome.
I believe you think routing was quicker and easier in those days, and for some, it probably was (Bendelow in his Spalding days) but not for someone laying out an ideal course and a life dream. As far as compared to today, I can only imagine that kind of project would be slower, given lesser technology, horses instead of Cushman carts, etc. How quickly could all the players come together on the same weekend (or day off) to ride the routing and make changes as a group?
I also believe the Dec 1906 snippet says that the boundaries will not be surveyed until the final design is done. This five month period is clearly when the wiggle room that was left to later had to be decided and nailed down to the nut. I can't see it being done sooner. And, if the boundaries of this theoretical golf course routing had not been settled and surveyed, it would be hard for CBM to know how many acres he use, right? And certainly the final adjustments had to be made to get to the agreed upon 205 acres he wanted.
BTW, I am not so sure the eastern border was locked, was it? I don't know the boundaries well, but do know that SH didn't own the northern land next to NGLA 10 until later. Who owned the land until then? Was it SHPB or another entity?
And as to May 1907, I believe Raynor was hired to lay the golf course out on the property and Payne hired to build it as he built SH, but then again, that little bit has nothing to do with the timeline we are debating.....I think Raynor was brought on several months before Payne for that work.
-
Jeff,
Nice synopsis and spot on.
All,
I'd have to be a masochist to put up with further abuse here and I'm not so I wont. Besides, I'm very confident that I've cleared up the remaining questions in my mind so until someone finds new info or better yet the metes and bounds I'm bowing out. Thanks to those who contributed productively.
-
No, they obviously weren't convenient enough, apparently.
Mike is denying that there were building lots convenient to NGLA, despite:
1. NGLA's de facto clubhouse, the Shinnecock Inn, was part of the development.
2. There were 1000+ acres of building lots in the development adjacent to NGLA.
3. New roads led directly to NGLA's de facto clubhouse, and according to the developer every building lot had road access to the Inn.
4. Many advertisements featured the golf club and emphasized the convenient access, as if the club was part of the development itself.
5. The statement of the President of the Development Co. raved about how the advantages of having NGLA so located were "obvious."
6. CBM told us that there were building lots were available.
Mike's apparent reasoning for ignoring all of this is that they weren't convenient to NGLA because the development wasn't as successful as intended.
I hope that those who wonder why I get frustrated with Mike are reading along.
-
David,
No one is reading along so I feel safe saying this in confidence. If you and Mike can't work things out please note that it is your turn to quit the site. Mike has truly been a breath of fresh air since his return.
-
Kavanaugh, if you had been reading along you'd know that Mike's "air" on these topics is anything but fresh.
Now run along and troll somewhere else.
-
Mike is quoting CBM directly in those Dec 1906 articles, and it seems pretty straightforward.
This is NOT true. Mike is NOT "quoting CBM directly" about supposed Founder's lots. There are extensive quotes in those articles from CBM (and HJW) about the actual project, but NOTHING about a scheme to give land back to the founders for building lots. As Mike has acknowledged for at least some of these reports, that information is paraphrased from the 1904 letter.
As to your October article, thanks again. However, I read that as the topo maps have been prepared but the design work hasn't really started. I would agree that CBM and HJW had made their three day ride by then, and had identified the Alps, Redan, Short, etc. However, most of the articles repeat those little snippets, and say no more. All the comments about design work are that the topo maps have been sent to others, and others will be brought in (note the future tense).
I find it funny that an architect would argue that "the design work hadn't really started" when they had already been out studying the property, had found a number of golf holes, had created elevation maps, and had forwarded those maps to a number of prominent advisors. You don't suppose those elevations maps they sent to their friends and advisors overseas were totally blank, do you?
Maybe what constitutes "design work" is different nowadays, but it sure sounds like the "design work" had begun to me.
As for your theory about not being able to figure out the acreage, didn't you just acknowledge that they already had elevation maps?
And I never said it was a quick or easy process. In fact I am arguing that it took a lot longer than you and Mike seem to think.
- Based on my reading of the facts, they started planning the course on the property in the late summer or fall of 1906.
- You guys seem to think that "the design work hadn't really started" until mid-December 1906 (even though this is obviously not the case.)
Regardless, like Mike you've got a number of facts wrong, and your timelines contrast with CBM's version of events. I'll go with CBM over you or Mike any day.
As for the land Shinnecock (or those directly related to Shinnecock) controlled, I think you are mistaken on that as well.
-
Below I've set out the timing of key events in Mike's chronology, but tried to leave out all the material that is largely beside the point. The words in Mucci Green are direct quotes from Mike's post No.379, in the order presented by Mike:
Mike's Chronology
1. CBM considers 450 acres of land up in Sebonac Neck . . .
2. In Macdonald’s words, “So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably…the company agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. That contract securing the land was signed on Friday, December 14, 1906, again at $200 per acre.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. After that 1906 agreement was reached, CBM tells us the next steps; “Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.”
5. In the December 1906 newspaper articles . . . Macdonald is quoted as saying the next several months would be devoted to selecting the holes and planning the course in detail, after which the boundaries would be staked out and plaster models would be created to guide the builders.
Note that Mike claims that only the first two occurred before December 14, 1906.
The trouble with Mike's chronology, and Jeff's for that matter, is that their version of events directly contradicts CBM's version, and the version told by the contemporaneous newspapers. In both cases, they have inserted in the "Agreement" in the wrong place. Look at Mike's No. 4, above:
After that 1906 agreement was reached, CBM tells us the next steps; “Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.”
But here is the actual CBM quote, with the next line included:
". . . Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile."
So all this happened BEFORE December 14, 1906. We know this because the Dec. 15 newspaper accounts discuss all of this! Next, CBM noted that they obtained an option on the property.
Mike's and Jeff's chronology is inconsistent with CBM's account. Mike's "next step" occurred before the option. I understand one possible point of confusion but it might be easiest to set it all out in a timeline of my own.
-
Mike is quoting CBM directly in those Dec 1906 articles, and it seems pretty straightforward.
This is NOT true. Mike is NOT "quoting CBM directly" about supposed Founder's lots. There are extensive quotes in those articles from CBM (and HJW) about the actual project, but NOTHING about a scheme to give land back to the founders for building lots. As Mike has acknowledged for at least some of these reports, that information is paraphrased from the 1904 letter.
One of your more frustrating traits is putting words in others mouths to change the subject, just to take a slam at them. In this discussion, we spoke only of what CBM said in Dec 1906 in those articles and the future work to lay out the holes, and we did quote him directly on that. YOU had to go an add the bit about the building lots, not part of this discussion, for the sole purpose of slamming Mike. That is pretty low, but typical of how you operate around here.
As to your October article, thanks again. However, I read that as the topo maps have been prepared but the design work hasn't really started. I would agree that CBM and HJW had made their three day ride by then, and had identified the Alps, Redan, Short, etc. However, most of the articles repeat those little snippets, and say no more. All the comments about design work are that the topo maps have been sent to others, and others will be brought in (note the future tense).
I find it funny that an architect would argue that "the design work hadn't really started" when they had already been out studying the property, had found a number of golf holes, had created elevation maps, and had forwarded those maps to a number of prominent advisors. You don't suppose those elevations maps they sent to their friends and advisors overseas were totally blank, do you?
If you insert the phrase "design process" instead of design work, then you and I agree it has started. And, then, we can agree it takes longer than many here think.
However, the design process involves information gathering first, then preliminary concept or "test" designs, then refinement. After being rejected on the other property, he was not apparently in a huge hurry to find another site with half a year of no reports. I believe you said there was some evidence that the three day ride might have occurred as early as May 1906, right? We are not sure what surveys and maps SHPB had, but he probably acquired those, did soil studies, and what not. So, maybe that takes a month.
He commissions a topo map, which I will guess takes two months to map 450 acres (based on my early career experience doing it with levels and gear not much different than those used a century ago) That takes us until at least August. Then he negotiates with SHPB to make sure they are amenable still and strikes a deal in September or so, first reported in October. (Not sure why it was reported again in Dec., other than the solicitation letter, and can agree that he was active after effectively getting control of the land via option)
So yes, I have always acknowledged some work took place, but it wasn't necessarily routing. You (and probably most amateur designers and first year landscape architecture students) often feel they would just jump right in, but they wouldn't. CBM wasn't trained in design, but its the same process as making business decisions, or scientific experiments.
You will probably tell us I don't know how design worked in those days, or accuse me of speculation, which is true to a point. (of course, we are both speculating, whether you want to admit you are doing it or not)
However, the October article only says the topo maps were made, a preliminary site visit was made by CBM and HJW. I don't doubt that they sent blank topo maps to their friends, as that is what you start a design with. They may have added notes such as "Alps hole goes here" but there is no basis for you to speculate that they had a whole routing done. Even if they had a tentative routing done, CBM says in December that the next five months will be devoted to finding holes, lengths, and features, etc.
That indicates that whatever preliminary work they had done was at the very least subject to change as you would expect from any designer working through the refinement process to the final design. And at the very least, CBM said what he said about the status of the plans in December, and there is no way your intuition is strong enough to over ride that.
However, we do agree that the design process isn't always point A to B. Obviously, part of their land analysis was the ride and in this case, not just identifying general golf features good for design, but specific ones, like the Alps. That made this process a bit different and that is not uncommon to look (or at least see) specific features you want for later use. But just as you thought CBM observing that a little stream parcel at some other course we won't mention constituted evidence that he had a routing in mind, and I didn't, I strong believe the same is true here. See my previous example of how long it takes to fit holes together sometimes. In my experience, the stronger you want to use a specific feature or two, the longer it takes to fit the other 14-16 holes around it. In modern times, we might just opt to build an Alps mound rather than so narrowly site a green, but that wasn't an option for them.
Maybe what constitutes "design work" is different nowadays, but it sure sounds like the "design work" had begun to me.
See above.
As for your theory about not being able to figure out the acreage, didn't you just acknowledge that they already had elevation maps?
elevation is vertical, acreage is horizontal. Yes, they probably had a general idea of the 450 acres. Some rough measurements might have gotten them close (if nothing else eyeballing about half the total land for them to consider. One thing I did note is the article said their potential acreage actually extended all the way to the railroad. Interesting side bit of speculation on what it might have looked like had the Inn not been built and road improved. Could the NGLA have started right at the train station for convenience? But, I digress
And I never said it was a quick or easy process. In fact I am arguing that it took a lot longer than you and Mike seem to think.
- Based on my reading of the facts, they started planning the course on the property in the late summer or fall of 1906.
- You guys seem to think that "the design work hadn't really started" until mid-December 1906 (even though this is obviously not the case.)
Regardless, like Mike you've got a number of facts wrong, and your timelines contrast with CBM's version of events. I'll go with CBM over you or Mike any day.
I don't think my time line misstates anything, but so like you to make that claim expecting everyone to take you at your word. By the way, as to your timeline, do you have any other earlier articles that actually say what you say they say, i.e. the holes were laid out? Because again, the October one puts design of the golf holes by the committee in the future.
As for the land Shinnecock (or those directly related to Shinnecock) controlled, I think you are mistaken on that as well.
I will admit that idea came from an outside source, but I don't think SH owned that land until they needed it for the Flynn redo, which was later.
BTW, as to your argument with Mike about how close the development was, I will agree with you. The label "Block 97" sits on the 9th green of NGLA, or close, indicating the roads were planned that close to NGLA prior to them laying it out. They changed a bit with subsequent development, of course, but I get your point there.
Again, I think thing just take longer than you envision, with more steps, which would have necessitated the final design not occur until he had the land option secured. He said he needed five months from the announcement to finalize things, and low and behold, five months later, he started construction. Seems as if he had about......five months worth of work left in Dec. 1906, doesn't it?
-
And I will concede that with the option basically in place in October, that the second earnest study of contours could have very well been between October and December. Which is why I have always said I don't think Dave and I are that far apart, unless he insists that the second earnest study of the contours occurred prior to October general agreement to buy the land.
CBM still says he will spend the first five months of 1907 setting hole lengths, picking features to replicate and what not. I have to ask, if it has already been done, why do it again?
If Dave wants to argue that they were simply "triple checking" their original ideas, I can't say that is impossible. However, they just mailed maps out in October, whereas Dave seems to imply it was all done before the topo maps were finalized. I don't see why or how that could be. Without the maps, they would be flying blind.
Dave, just what newspaper are we contradicting? Certainly not the October article that puts design largely in the future? Do you have another one you want to run by us as your proof? Or, are you and your "common sense" your source for your theories again? I hate to ask you to post another article again, but if you posted one earlier in this thread that I forgot, or found convincing, it eludes me.
-
David,
One last thing, but I notice that you took liberties with what CBM wrote in post 80.
You wrote:
Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened. Here again is what happened, according to CBM:
1. There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonack Neck.
2. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property and studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3. The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4. CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5. After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later.
6. At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7. At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.
However, in reading it, CBM said they studied the contours again in earnest AFTER SHPB agreed to sell them the land, not before, just as Mike and I have said. Read it again:
"Whigham and I spent three days riding the over it, studying the contours of the ground. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purposes. Again, we studied the contours earnestly selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
So, the TRUE pattern was:
Study contours,
Buy the land (or get the option for further study, and probably starting in October 1906 under gentleman's agreement)
THEN Earnestly study contours again AFTER the option, not before (from October through May 1907)
Then stake out the holes, AFTER probably to finalize the land deal.
It seems you deliberately/disingenuously or erroneously misstated CBM's own words and flipped the order of events from what he wrote to make your point, launching 20 pages of debate. I suppose we could assume you figure that an agreement to let him study the land prior to purchase was the agreement to sell them the land, but that would be generous. I have no doubt that the agreement was in October, as reported. And that the earnest study started then, as most of the historic data suggests.
And again, if we agree that this design work of starting to pick the holes starts in October when the option was basically secured in principle, then we may agree. Certainly that would fit CBM's words as well as newspaper articles in December saying some holes had already been picked out.
If you insist it was far earlier, then you and I will simply have to strongly disagree.
-
One of your more frustrating traits is putting words in others mouths to change the subject, just to take a slam at them. In this discussion, we spoke only of what CBM said in Dec 1906 in those articles and the future work to lay out the holes, and we did quote him directly on that. YOU had to go an add the bit about the building lots, not part of this discussion, for the sole purpose of slamming Mike. That is pretty low, but typical of how you operate around here.
"One of your more frustrating traits" is to take ambiguous and inaccurate jabs at me, and then fly off the handle when I call you on it. Mike and I were arguing about the founders lots in addition to the design schedule, and that is what I thought you meant. Next time you want to take an juvenile shot at me, be more specific.
As for your long description of how you would have designed NGLA, thanks, but you are ignoring much of what CBM had already told about the course in mid-December.
Besides, I've never said that it was a fast process. I've always said the opposite. But at the very least CBM seems to have had a rough idea of how the course would going to fit on the property before he optioned the property, and there is plenty of evidence so support this. (See for example his detailed description of the characteristics of the course in December 1906.)
-
David,
Well, our posts crossed, but you certainly fly off the handle, misstate others opinions and motives, etc. If someone was going to assess anger levels (other than the occasional short burst I have with Patrick for his general infantile behavior here) I think you would get the vote as most strident poster, or finish second to Patrick. Let's just say neither of us handles constant rejection as well as Ghandi or some other near saint.
Besides, nothing ambiguous about my post. You and Mike were NOT discussing Founders lot in this exchange, but your inserted it needlessly. However, this thread has taken some tangents, so confusion is possible. I just doubt it and I will maintain that one of your best/worst arguing tactics is deflection from simple premises.
You can read my previous posts. But saying he found a few holes is a long way from saying he had the routing complete, or nearly so. I will agree (and don't think I ever disagreed) that CBM could have easily sketched out a rough idea of at least the land mass that would work for him given his design criteria. There is still a lot of work to be done, and CBM's own words in December tell us he had five more months of work to do in all that. So, obviously, you seem to be ignoring what he said in December because it suits your preconceptions.
-
And I will concede that with the option basically in place in October, that the second earnest study of contours could have very well been between October and December. Which is why I have always said I don't think Dave and I are that far apart, unless he insists that the second earnest study of the contours occurred prior to October general agreement to buy the land.
Read the book Jeff. Look at what CBM says he found during what you call "the second earnest study." The same stuff CBM discussed in mid-December. It is not a matter of "could have." The second study was before the December newspaper accounts.
This is where your timeline (and Mike's) are wrong.
CBM still says he will spend the first five months of 1907 setting hole lengths, picking features to replicate and what not. I have to ask, if it has already been done, why do it again?
Because as you say it is a process. For example, he had to understand and finalize the widths of the playing corridors and the details of the holes he envisioned before he could set the final width of the property, and that took additional planning. And he had to work out the details of all he envisioned to make sure it worked. And on some holes he may have had to decide where to place the tees, and features, and probably some green sites. But he still had a rough idea of how his course would fit on the land.
Also, he did want to get all of his friends overseas to sign off on his ideas (even if only for credibility sake) and that likely took some time, , so you could call that a "second check" if you like.
If Dave wants to argue that they were simply "triple checking" their original ideas, I can't say that is impossible. However, they just mailed maps out in October, whereas Dave seems to imply it was all done before the topo maps were finalized. I don't see why or how that could be. Without the maps, they would be flying blind.
Jeff, now instead of twisting CBM's timeline you are twisting mine.
I didn't claim the course design was completed before mid-October. Only that the process had already started at some point before then, and that by mid-December, they had a very good idea of how the course would fit on the land.
And the article doesn't say "just they mailed maps out in October." It was reported in October, but the article doesn't say when it happened. Could have been months before as far as we know.
Dave, just what newspaper are we contradicting? Certainly not the October article that puts design largely in the future? Do you have another one you want to run by us as your proof? Or, are you and your "common sense" your source for your theories again? I hate to ask you to post another article again, but if you posted one earlier in this thread that I forgot, or found convincing, it eludes me.
You were contradicting the articles by claiming that what you call the "second earnest study" occurred after mid-December 1906, whereas they seem to confirm it happened before. I see you have begun to see the light on this issue, though.
-
David,
Well, our posts crossed, but you certainly fly off the handle, misstate others opinions and motives, etc. If someone was going to assess anger levels (other than the occasional short burst I have with Patrick for his general infantile behavior here) I think you would get the vote as most strident poster, or finish second to Patrick. Let's just say neither of us handles constant rejection as well as Ghandi or some other near saint.
Jeff, while you think you know me, you don't. I do get frustrated with Cirba for what I consider obvious reasons, but I am not angry in these posts to you. Mostly I am just amused. Even with Cirba I am usually more dumfounded than angry.
You can read my previous posts. But saying he found a few holes is a long way from saying he had the routing complete, or nearly so. I will agree (and don't think I ever disagreed) that CBM could have easily sketched out a rough idea of at least the land mass that would work for him given his design criteria. There is still a lot of work to be done, and CBM's own words in December tell us he had five more months of work to do in all that. So, obviously, you seem to be ignoring what he said in December because it suits your preconceptions.
It is not just finding a few holes. His description went well beyond this.
And I am not ignoring anything he said in December. He said he had five months to get everything done and ready for construction, although one report says three, I think.
It is just that I can think of some other reasons that construction wouldn't have start until late spring other than your theory that they needed every minute for the design process.
You do understand how an option works, don't you? Do you expect that they would have started construction before the owned the land?
Even if so, do you really think they would have planned to start during the winter? Or do you think it might have made some sense to them to wait until closer to the season?
-
David,
Well, I think some or most of it did. I based that on the December articles which seemed to be the option contract. And, in fact, I think you wrote that the option was signed in December 1906. So, what I missed was the obvious agreement in principle also reported in October.
While they certainly found some holes in the summer, I suspect they didn't confirm their intent to buy until they could get an overview of the site via survey, about October, or however much earlier it would take them to negotiate the preliminary deal.
So, yes, at this point, I have no qualms saying the second earnest study could have started anywhere after October. Any earlier just seems wrong.
As to your last post, sometimes I believe you will argue ever more minute differences just to argue. For instance,
I don't see his description as going well beyond finding the holes. We can never know.
I believe the actual option gave him three months to finish the design work and set the boundaries, while the newspaper accounts said five. I have no idea if there is time for recording the purchase to make it final or what might account for the difference, but even on sandy soil, starting construction in New York earlier than May isn't very productive, except for maybe clearing, but that usually gets to be a big mess when wet.
I never said they would start construction before they owned the land. Another example of you twisting, or at the very least not understanding what I said. There are so many times when both of us seem to speak right past each other, perhaps from our different perspectives.
I just reread the chapter you typed out in post 80. You got it wrong. Hence, why Mike and I think your earlier timeline is wrong.
-
Jeff, I just noticed your insulting post number 474. I can't keep up. I did not misrepresent CBM's timeline, you just misunderstand it. I will respond in a while when I get a chance.
-
David,
If you think that post of Jeff's is insulting you really need to read and consider many of your own.
Carry on
.
-
Mike. Sometimes the truth hurts. The difference here, though, is that Jeff is wrong. There is nothing deliberately/disingenuously or even erroneously stated in my NGLA chronology. He just doesn't understand it.
-
Jeff, in post 474 you falsely accused me of doctoring CBM's words to try and make my point.
It seems you deliberately/disingenuously or erroneously misstated CBM's own words and flipped the order of events from what he wrote to make your point, launching 20 pages of debate.
You again claim I got it wrong in post 479.
Here is the chronology from post 80. 1. There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3. The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4. CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5. After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later.
6. At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7. At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.
Here is the relevant passage from Scotland's Gift through acquisition of the option, with my bullet point numbers added in red:
However, 1. there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay and laying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Every one thought it more or less worthless. It abounded with bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way one could get over the ground was on ponies. 2. So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. 3. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. 4. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile. The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, there thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us-- a much desired situation.
When playing golf you want to be alone with nature.
5. We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906 . . .
My points are straight out of Scotland's Gift with a few further explanations from the articles, and they are presented in the exact same chronological order as in Scotland's Gift. Show me where I doctored or manipulated CBM's passage.
Apparently, you mistakenly think that the day the company agreed to sell the land was the exact same day that CBM obtained the option. But this isn't what CBM said. He doesn't mention anything about obtaining an option until later, after further earnest study, and after he had found locations that would fit naturally with the holes he had in mind (including but not limited to the Alps, Cape, etc.), and after he had roughly staked out the land he wanted (2 mile by "4 acre" strip, starting near the Shinnecock Inn, one mile of Bullshead Bay frontage, one quarter mile of Peconic Bay frontage.)
-
Sven,
If CBM knew where landforms were that he wanted to use for at least 4 holes in December 1906 and that he wanted to start near the Shinnecock Inn and go as far as Peconic Bay, how many months do you think it would take to connect the dots (as you say) to come up with a routing plan before construction could begin?
Bryan,
I would submit that the routing was basically complete prior to the date that the land was purchased in it's unique configuration.
Unless of course you feel that CBM bought the land, "randomly" and somehow created the holes to fit within that unique configuration after he bought the land.
Given that he was trying to design his ideal course and apply a lot of template holes to the property in some kind of coherent routing, it can't have been a quick job.
I would disagree.
If you accept your own premise of the four (4) holes and the Shinnecock Inn as the core of the routing, the rest of the holes fall in line like a simple jigsaw puzzle. And, it was more than just four (4) holes.
You completely forgot about the "Road" hole, the current 7th hole, which CBM states "was easy to duplicate"
With the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 13th holes in place, not to mention his other "template" holes, such as the Cape, in conjunction with the Shinnecock Inn as your starting and ending point, the routing becomes immediately obvious within the confines of the property purchased.
And, if CBM always intended to use the present site for his clubhouse and the Shinnecock inn as the temporary clubhouse the routing becomes even more obvious.
There are many things you don't understand.
For example: after finding his Eden, where else could he go, if not north, with the Cape.
Having found his Sahara, how could he get to the tee for his Sahara.
Having found his "road" hole, how was he going to get to the Shinnecock Inn ?
And Lastly, from the Shinnecock Inn how was he going to get to his Eden ?
The answer is that he had routed the course prior to purchasing the land.
He knew what holes he wanted and he knew where they were located, and that's why he purchased the land in that specific configuration
If you were more familiar with the property I think you'd agree.
Was he not working at his regular day job during this timeframe too.
The course was routed BEFORE the land was purchased
-
David,
Of course, you change the order in your last post. The earnest study came after the option in his exact words. You placed both studies ahead of the option.
And abobe, you add (not CBM) that the option was obtained after all of it as point 5, in bold as all the other CBM quotes, to make it seem as if CBM wrote that, too. But, he didn't. You superimposed your words and interpretations on his, in a sly and sneaky way. Of course, the agreement to sell the land had to be the option.
I suppose the good news for you is I respected you enough to take your transcription at face value. Finding that you play with to impose your interpretation was very insulting to me, and I am sure anyone following, and very disappointing. Thus, the insulting tone of my post. And of course, I am sure more than just me are insulted at your insinuation that I am just too dumb to understand. How many times have you called me that over the years or called me or Mike disingenuous, as if we were trying to sneak something by? Well, I have lost count. Especially since you do it all the time, and then accuse others of it to cover your tracks.
But this is simple. We post CBM's exact words without your interpretation, and of course, they say that much of the design was done after the option. You can type 100,000 words, but I understand the truth, we all do, and you can't change it by the sheer force of your will power.
In any case, I do understand how options work. You take one to do the type of earnest study you need to do to assure you still want to make a land purchase. And, that is what CBM did, no? Prior to that, he made enough study to believe he wanted the land, but obviously wasn't entirely sure, or he just would have purchased it outright in October, or December, whenever it actually was.
Pretty simple explanation, and usually, the truth is simple, and rarely as convoluted as your many theories.
-
Jeff. Show me where I switched the order. Everything in my chronology comes directly from CBM, and it is in the exact same the same order as Scotland's Gift. Both of your "earnest studies" did occur before the option. Look at what CBM wrote.
The earnest study came after the option in his exact words.
FALSE. CBM address the option in the same order I addressed the option. My point 5. CBM at the bottom of page 187.
You placed both studies ahead of the option.
As did CBM.
And abobe, you add (not CBM) that the option was obtained after all of it as point 5, in bold as all the other CBM quotes, to make it seem as if CBM wrote that, too. But, he didn't.
FALSE. CBM did write it. See the last sentence of page 187. Right after "When playing golf you want to be alone with nature." Exactly where I put it.
You superimposed your words and interpretations on his, in a sly and sneaky way. Of course, the agreement to sell the land had to be the option.
FALSE. I superimposed nothing. I conveyed his words in his order.
I suppose the good news for you is I respected you enough to take your transcription at face value. Finding that you play with to impose your interpretation was very insulting to me, and I am sure anyone following, and very disappointing. Thus, the insulting tone of my post. And of course, I am sure more than just me are insulted at your insinuation that I am just too dumb to understand. How many times have you called me that over the years or called me or Mike disingenuous, as if we were trying to sneak something by? Well, I have lost count. Especially since you do it all the time, and then accuse others of it to cover your tracks.
You are making a fool of yourself, Jeff. Read what CBM wrote.
In any case, I do understand how options work. You take one to do the type of earnest study you need to do to assure you still want to make a land purchase. And, that is what CBM did, no? Prior to that, he made enough study to believe he wanted the land, but obviously wasn't entirely sure, or he just would have purchased it outright in October, or December, whenever it actually was.
It doesn't really sound like you know how options work. Generally the option would have given CBM the right to buy the property at a set price for a set amount of time, but it would NOT have given CBM right of entry to the property to study the property. Allowing CBM entry would have been at the good graces of the developer, regardless of whether or not CBM had obtained an option on the property. Oftentimes in these situations an option will be obtained to hold the property while the potential purchaser raiseS the money for the purchase. (That is what happened with a number of the parcels which ultimately made up Merion; the development company owned options on the property, not the property, and exercised options with the money from the sale to Merion.) Recall that CBM sent out a notice that $1000 per founder was due.
Pretty simple explanation, and usually, the truth is simple, and rarely as convoluted as your many theories.
Not really that simple but definitely wrong. Read Scotland's Gift. Compare it to what I wrote.
-
Sven,
I guess I was trying to get to first principles with the questions. It seems to me, a rank amateur, that routing must be difficult to do well and quickly. I remember some years ago standing in the midst of Bandon Trails and wondering how in the hell C&C could have found that routing and the holes that make it up in the midst of a primeval forest. Perhaps CBM had it easier at NGLA as the site was more open, but then he sisn't have modern design tools and ideas. He was breaking new design ground. Being an early pioneer usually makes things more difficult and time consuming. It just seems likely that it must have taken some months, maybe all five that were reported, to get the whole route plan together. I'm just skeptical that so many holes of a template nature would just leap out of the site in a month or two or shorter. I know you're not advocating the overnight premise.
I agree that they would likely have wanted to have a full construction plan and routing in place before starting. If they didn't have money for a clubhouse initially, it seems to me that they must have been on a budget and would not want to waste money through poor planning.
Sven,
If CBM knew where landforms were that he wanted to use for at least 4 holes in December 1906 and that he wanted to start near the Shinnecock Inn and go as far as Peconic Bay, how many months do you think it would take to connect the dots (as you say) to come up with a routing plan before construction could begin? Given that he was trying to design his ideal course and apply a lot of template holes to the property in some kind of coherent routing, it can't have been a quick job. Was he not working at his regular day job during this timeframe too.
Bryan:
I'm not in the camp that believes the details were worked out overnight.
I do think that they had a very good idea of the general routing as early as Dec. 1906 (if not earlier), and that they used the first part of 1907 to finalize the plan, including staking out the entire property so that the plaster model (for investor purposes) could be produced. I would guess that once they settled on the land, CBM and others would have spent a great deal of time coming up with a turf plan, as his later writings indicate the amount of preliminary work that went into determining the types of grasses they would use and the treatment of the land necessary to make them grow. So in addition to completing the routing, they were working on other basic course construction issues and setting in place everything they would need to start construction as planned in the late Spring and early Summer of 1907.
I don't think these guys were the type to start actual construction work until they had a pretty darn good idea of what they were actually constructing.
Sven
-
Indeed I haven't "proved" it. I was reporting what I saw from a credible source. It could be wrong, like so many historical accounts and interpretations we see. Or, it could be right. I think the source is credible so I'll stick with it until something comes along that disproves it. The deeds would be proof one way or the other.
Mike,
The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre). CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse. So he paid the asking price.
Bryan:
You have yet to prove that the 2.5 acres was for the clubhouse. It may have been for the proshop, but that is a different story.
Sven
-
Sven,
Agreed in concept, but think coming up with a finalized routing and all hole conceptions was more complicated and time-consuming than we know based on how overgrown the property was before it was cleared sometime in 1907. The article I posted yesterday from mid-August of that year makes it sound like it was still a bit of a safari at that point. Thanks.
Mike:
In Piper & Oakley, CBM notes they were cutting brush throughout the summer.* Where would they have known to cut the brush if they didn't already have the routing in place?
From early pictures of the course that I've seen it looks like they took out pretty much all of the brush. Is there any evidence that they only cleared the playing corridors?
Its pretty basic, they weren't going to do more work than they had to.
Sven
*I assume this was the summer of 1907, because we know that by the summer of 1908 they already had the course in place.
-
Also Jeff, for further evidence that your "second earnest study" happened before the option, look closely a the entire description of your "second earnest study" in Scotland's Gift . . .
. . . Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile. The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, there thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us-- a much desired situation.
When playing golf you want to be alone with nature.
We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. . . .
Look familiar? It is basically the same description that CBM description as printed in the December 15 articles. He had already found these holes and made these determinations by mid-December 1906. Then CBM goes on to discuss the option.
-
Indeed I haven't "proved" it. I was reporting what I saw from a credible source. It could be wrong, like so many historical accounts and interpretations we see. Or, it could be right. I think the source is credible so I'll stick with it until something comes along that disproves it. The deeds would be proof one way or the other.
Mike,
The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre). CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse. So he paid the asking price.
Bryan:
You have yet to prove that the 2.5 acres was for the clubhouse. It may have been for the proshop, but that is a different story.
Sven
Please identify the source so the rest of us can determine the credibility for ourselves.
-
Two other thoughts as David and Mike are getting tedious.
The current 1st hole runs to the east and into the rising sun. The current 18th runs to the west and into the setting sun. Was it not part of the design ethos in the early 1900's not to do that. The originally intended 1st and 18th both run north-south avoiding the rising and setting sun issue. Maybe CBM really intended to avoid the sun issue and that was another reason he originally started at the south end of the property.
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
-
Sven,
Please identify the source so the rest of us can determine the credibility for ourselves.
Sorry, I don't want to do that yet. I'm still trying to determine what it is I'm seeing. You can take what I say with a grain of salt, but that's true of most everything posted on here. Even CBM is known to have misstated things on occasion.
-
In case anyone is thinking that maybe the routing wasn't completed by the Summer of 1907 . . . There is a May 4, 1907 NY Evening Post article extensively quoting Whigham about the course. Whigham did not mention every hole, but he did describe a number of holes including their hole numbers and some of the distances. I don't think this would have been possible if the routing wasn't in place.
-
8) David,
Back on Reply #333 you promised me it'd take 20 more pages to get to the Inn burning down.. i can't wait that long!
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/shinne%20inn_zpszwti5101.png)
-
Come on, Steve, that was only 6 pages ago. If you can't wait another 14 pages maybe you don't really want to know . . .
-
8) All,
The words are a blur, there needs to be more visual aids, for describing this 200+ acres like:
1) the gross course areas delineated below add up to about 165 acres, I note CBM's Ballyshear was reported as 200 acres [edit] and sold off land now a paltry 32-35 acres [edit, depending on search links], and now Mr Bloomberg has a nice practice area.. ::) riding a horse can jog & affect one's perception of distance or areas :o
2) the western boundary is about 2750 yards long; if lots extended 216 ft west from that boundary, that'd be ~41 acres ....
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ngla1_zpsnljkhvkd.png)
3) the gross polygon areas delineated below add up to about 32 acres; surveyors , surveyors, surveyors... straight lines..
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ngla2_zpssrzb5p57.png)
-
Sven,
Please identify the source so the rest of us can determine the credibility for ourselves.
Sorry, I don't want to do that yet. I'm still trying to determine what it is I'm seeing. You can take what I say with a grain of salt, but that's true of most everything posted on here. Even CBM is known to have misstated things on occasion.
Well, perhaps when you get the deeds you can prove that they did not own the portion of the property that lay between the 1st and 18th holes, on the interior of the course.
Until I see that, I'm going to go on the basis that they did, and the 2.5 acre purchase was for the proshop, in an entirely different area, one located on the borders of the course, not the interior.
With regards to clearing the fairway areas, I'd suggest you read Piper and Oakley again. You'll get a better understanding of exactly what they were doing in the summer of 1907, and why. And as David just noted, there is solid evidence the routing was in place by May of 1907.
As for your setting/rising sun theory, it may have been a concern, but it may not have. I will say there were other courses built at the time and later with the same configuration, including Pebble Beach.
Sorry if this sounds dismissive, but you've really not presented anything with any teeth. Unnamed and unverifiable sources, comparisons to modern day practices, general feelings and the use of the phrase "it seems likely" rank fairly low on my list of reasonable evidence (or whatever you want to call it).
Sven
-
Thanks Steve!
Can you show me where CBM planned on putting the 60 or 70 building lots for his founders? There doesn't seem to be a place for them along the western border.
As for Ballyshear, I've read at least three different accounts of the acreage. One at 200 acres (which I referenced somewhere above), one at 100 acres, and now yours at 32 acres. Not that it matters to this thread, but any idea which one is correct?
Also, any idea where "Sebonac Creek" is located? Is it a creek feeding into Bullshead Bay? Or is it just the west inlet into Bullshead Bay?
-
David,
How about 35 acres ??... depends where you read... Google search on 117 Whites Lane, South Hampton, Long Island
CB‘s Ballyshears Sugar Shack… now Bloomberg's "Cottage"
http://hamptons.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/01/surreal_35acre_shinnecock_estate_hits_market_for_225m.php
http://hamptons.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/25/whats_going_on_with_the_ballyshear_estate.php#4fe8695b85216d3e510062fd
(http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fe86a9485216d3e5100a63b/1.jpg)
But not just any house, of course. For a rumored $20 million, Bloomberg is picking up the storied Ballyshear Estate, a 22,000-square-foot Georgian mansion built in 1910 with 11 bedrooms, 8 bathrooms, and gardens designed by the Olmsted Brothers (a firm run by the son and step-son of Frederick Law Olmsted of Central Park fame). It was originally on 200 acres, which were sold off over the years (the property is now just 35 acres). We can't wait to run into him at Tate's Bakeshop.
http://www.oldlongisland.com/2010/10/ballyshear.html
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OlaVeajrP30/TLbpKdeE4iI/AAAAAAAAGug/LvJaeXWvxhw/s400/Ballyshear.jpg)
-
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
I haven't checked the manuscripts, but is it possible that that your source is thinking of the previous winter? The reason I ask is because CBM had, in a sense, already "winnowed down his template holes" to 18 in the article he published in Outing Magazine in 1906.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Steve,
In case you missed it, here is a link to an article from 1913 describing the place.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8vxHAQAAMAAJ&dq=ballyshear&pg=RA6-PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
Thanks Steve!
Can you show me where CBM planned on putting the 60 or 70 building lots for his founders? There doesn't seem to be a place for them along the western border.
Not going to touch that until after the next CBM seance :o
-
Thanks Steve!
Also, any idea where "Sebonac Creek" is located? Is it a creek feeding into Bullshead Bay? Or is it just the west inlet into Bullshead Bay?
You can find any waterbody in the US from EPA's Surf Your WAtershed...
http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/?layer=303D&feature=NY-1701-0051&extraLayers=null
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/5cc1e0c6-03f5-4874-82f4-fc74cd21575f_zpseqljj5px.png)
-
David,
thanks for that link. I missed it on earlier post
Steve,
In case you missed it, here is a link to an article from 1913 describing the place.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8vxHAQAAMAAJ&dq=ballyshear&pg=RA6-PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false
[/quote]
does anyone know who did Mr Bloomberg's new practice facility??
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ballyshear2_zps1gg3czjr.png)
-
David,
Its possible CBM's estate was originally larger and there were subsequent sell offs of land through the years.
Bryan,
Seems to me, after looking at Steve's graphics that the pro shop is where the 2.5 acre purchase comes from. Could it be you're confusing the pro shop with the clubhouse. I know most modern places have them both in the same building but a lot of classic courses have a golf/pro shop separate from the clubhouse.
-
David,
The problem with your interpretation of what CBM wrote is that he was writing a narrative, not a chronology.
The most glaring error with your reading is that he staked out the land he wanted in the spring of 1907, which in your reading preceded his securing the land in 1906.
All,
Does anyone know where the 20 acres CBM sold Mr. Sabin in 1920 were located south of Sebonac Road and why /when Macdonald acquired that land in the first place?
Steve,
Nice work. So,without considering the sometimes considerable gaps between the out and back routing such that exists between 5 and 14, it looks like CBM used at max 165 of 205 acres for his golf course, is that correct.?
Thanks!
-
8) Mike,
I hope you're not leading to asking me to measure 18 hole's areas.. ;D :P
Yes, gross course OUTLINE area measured in those 4 big areas is 165 acres, including spaces directly between holes and pro shop and clubhouse and the Maint. building there in middle, off end of Whites Lane). Given a design length of 6100 yards, if an average hole has 80 yards width reserved for planning, that's ~ 100 acres of pure golf course... one can factor off of that to speculate how planning may have proceeded. But I'd still wait for the next CBM seance. 8)
-
Sven,
Please identify the source so the rest of us can determine the credibility for ourselves.
Sorry, I don't want to do that yet. I'm still trying to determine what it is I'm seeing. You can take what I say with a grain of salt, but that's true of most everything posted on here. Even CBM is known to have misstated things on occasion.
Well, perhaps when you get the deeds you can prove that they did not own the portion of the property that lay between the 1st and 18th holes, on the interior of the course.
Until I see that, I'm going to go on the basis that they did, and the 2.5 acre purchase was for the proshop, in an entirely different area, one located on the borders of the course, not the interior.
Fair enough. I've said a few times that you may be right. But, then my source material might be right. What would we discuss on here if not different interpretations of source material.
With regards to clearing the fairway areas, I'd suggest you read Piper and Oakley again. You'll get a better understanding of exactly what they were doing in the summer of 1907, and why. And as David just noted, there is solid evidence the routing was in place by May of 1907.
As for your setting/rising sun theory, it may have been a concern, but it may not have. I will say there were other courses built at the time and later with the same configuration, including Pebble Beach.
It was just another thought. Take it or leave it.
Sorry if this sounds dismissive, but you've really not presented anything with any teeth. Unnamed and unverifiable sources, comparisons to modern day practices, general feelings and the use of the phrase "it seems likely" rank fairly low on my list of reasonable evidence (or whatever you want to call it).
It does sound dismissive. You can take it or leave it, as you wish.
Sven
-
Thanks Steve!
Also, any idea where "Sebonac Creek" is located? Is it a creek feeding into Bullshead Bay? Or is it just the west inlet into Bullshead Bay?
You can find any waterbody in the US from EPA's Surf Your WAtershed...
http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/?layer=303D&feature=NY-1701-0051&extraLayers=null
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/5cc1e0c6-03f5-4874-82f4-fc74cd21575f_zpseqljj5px.png)
Steve,
Interesting. Pat will likely chime in shortly that that map is all wrong because Google Earth labels that area West Neck Creek. ;) ;D
For whatever it is worth the USGS 1904 topo map show Sebonac Creek as paralleling what is now Sebonac Inlet Road down to the swamp where CBM built the original 4th hole - Eden. And, Ram Island was a real island
Re your second acreage map, for what it's worth, the 11.2 acre parcel by Sebonac Inlet (Creek?) is shown as mostly under water with a thin sand bar on the 1904 topo map.
David, if you're trying to figure out where the 4 acres are that CBM bought from Stackpole is 1911, I'd guess that they are probably down around the original 4th green area. Again, deeds might help place it accurately.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8814/17438056558_f7d8227550_o.jpg)
-
David,
Its possible CBM's estate was originally larger and there were subsequent sell offs of land through the years.
Bryan,
Seems to me, after looking at Steve's graphics that the pro shop is where the 2.5 acre purchase comes from. Could it be you're confusing the pro shop with the clubhouse. I know most modern places have them both in the same building but a lot of classic courses have a golf/pro shop separate from the clubhouse.
JC,
As I've said a few times now, it could be that's where the 2.5 acres were. The material I saw said that the Realty Co sold it on condition that CBM only use it for his clubhouse. Maybe he built his pro shop and practice area on it instead. If we had the deeds, we could know for sure.
-
Speaking of Macdonald ' s narrative description, one thing that always seemed incongruous to me was his statement about wanting to be alone with nature when playing golf. This, after saying that he had made a previous offer on 120 acres that he would have had to have known would be lined with building lots. I almost get the sense he was comparing the two sites and mentioning the remoteness as a plus of the second site which was generally considered worthless for real estate and had never been surveyed for housing purposes.
-
Mike, when CBM determined that he should build a course on 120 acres near the canal, it was within a few weeks of the developer having purchased the property. So the development plan was not yet in place and it was basically as empty as much the rest of the 2000 acre Shinecock Hills property. You've seen the photos of that section of land. It may not have been as ideal of a setting, but CBM could've been "alone with nature" there too.
You keep claiming that the Sebonac Neck property was worthless but the facts indicate that this was not the case. CBM paid $200 an acre for the land when the developer had only paid $50 an acre about a year before. According to CBM, a few years after the developer had offers for over $1000 per acre on the same land.
-
David,
The land of Sebonac Neck was considered worthless for farming and was certainly not part of phase one of the developers plans for reasons we can probably speculate about even though those plans covered a few thousand acres of land. Bryan mentioned a different price than CBM for that purchase and I'm sure it had a relative market value, no land being completely worthless in a strict sense.
However, I do think the developer knew Macdonald was sort of stuck and asked for a lot, saying he'd been offered more for land adjacent. I think if that were true the developer should have sold because it wasn't until 1917 I believe when Sabin purchased all of it. Do you know what Sabin paid per acre. I haven't been able to find out yet.
-
Mike, Bryan did NOT mention a different price that what CBM had paid for the extra 2.5 acres. Both said CBM paid about $750 per acre for the 2.5 acre parcel. That is a 15 times more per acre than the $50 per acre that the developer had reportedly paid for the Shinnecock Hills property about five or six years before. Hardly worthless.
Here again is what CBM said about the 2.5 acre purchase and the offer the developer had for the adjacent property.
During the past year we found it necessary, in order to protect ourselves, to purchase two and one-half acres of additional land on Peconic Bay at the western end of the golf course. The Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company were loath to sell us this at a price under $1,000 an acre, but eventually, as expressed by them, to give us their aid, they sold us the two and one half acres for $750 an acre. They have been bid more than $1000 an acre for the land adjoining this two and one-half acres. It can therefore be safely stated that our original purchase of two hundred and five acres would be cheap at $500 an acre, as no land contiguous to ours can today be bought for less than that figure.
As for the rest of your post, I'll go with CBM's representations over your speculation and theories.
____________________________________________________________
David,
Its possible CBM's estate was originally larger and there were subsequent sell offs of land through the years.
Bryan,
Seems to me, after looking at Steve's graphics that the pro shop is where the 2.5 acre purchase comes from. Could it be you're confusing the pro shop with the clubhouse. I know most modern places have them both in the same building but a lot of classic courses have a golf/pro shop separate from the clubhouse.
JC. Yes it is possible that Ballyshear used to be (much) larger When Steve had put out that 32 acre figure I thought he meant the size then.
As for the 2.5 acre lot, the weight of the evidence thus far strongly suggests that the 2.5 acre lot was the pro shop area and not the clubhouse. As you can see in CBM's description above (at western end of golf course, on Peconic Bay, adjacent to developer's land) the description fits the proshop area, not the clubhouse area. Also this parcel wasn't included as part of the property in the early blueprint, suggesting it was added. Also, it would have made no sense for either the developer or CBM to cut a donut hole out of the middle of CBM's golf course.
-
Steve Lang,
Thanks again for providing those graphics on the with the acreages. In the past Jim Kennedy and I have tried measured the acreage of the golf course only, and we have come up with numbers from about 160 acres to about 180 acres (depending on how much of the rough is included) so in line with yours.
A possible shortcoming of this approach is that it doesn't take into consideration that, if the property border is within close proximity to the course, then land in between is essentially a buffer, and not really appropriate for any sort of development. So another way to come at the problem is to subtract out the chunks of land that aren't part of the golf course, which you also did in your post.
It looks like the only two substantial chunks of land along the border of the course are, 1) the approx. 15 acres right of the 17th hole, and 2) the 11 acres of land used for the range, much of which is covered by a pond. You also included the 2.5 acres of land at the pro shop, but this was not part of the original purchase. You also included the aprox. 4 acres of land at the clubhouse, but it is locked by the course.
-
David,
The problem with your interpretation of what CBM wrote is that he was writing a narrative, not a chronology.
The most glaring error with your reading is that he staked out the land he wanted in the spring of 1907, which in your reading preceded his securing the land in 1906.
There is neither a "problem" nor a "glaring error" with my summary of CBM's chronology of events from Scotland's Gift. And he was writing a narrative which included a chronology of events.
In contrast, your chronology flip-flops events in an way that CBM obviously did not intend, and in a way which directly contradicts the December news accounts. For example, read this excerpt from CBM:
. . . So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape.
Let me ask you . . . By CBM's account, which event happened first:
"The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose."
OR
"Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. . . ."
The answer is obvious, and it doesn't match your chronology.
___________________________________________________________
As for your claim that I made a "glaring error" about the date they first staked out the land they wanted, I disagree. By mid-December CBM had already chosen roughly 205 acres from among the 450 acres, and he provided a detailed physical description of the that parcel he intended to purchase. That would have been pretty hard to do had he not staked it out first.
CBM did say that the "exact lines" would not be staked out until the plans were complete, but so what? Do you really think the developer is going to sell an option without the land having been at least roughly marked off to show both parties the subject of the transaction?
-
Two other thoughts as David and Mike are getting tedious.
The current 1st hole runs to the east and into the rising sun. The current 18th runs to the west and into the setting sun. Was it not part of the design ethos in the early 1900's not to do that. The originally intended 1st and 18th both run north-south avoiding the rising and setting sun issue. Maybe CBM really intended to avoid the sun issue and that was another reason he originally started at the south end of the property.
Bryan,
This is where your ignorance puts you at a disadvantage.
If you were familiar with and understood the topography you'd know that the rising and setting sun aren't a problem.
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
Why don't you check with the source that provided that suggestion ?
-
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
I haven't checked the manuscripts, but is it possible that that your source is thinking of the previous winter? The reason I ask is because CBM had, in a sense, already "winnowed down his template holes" to 18 in the article he published in Outing Magazine in 1906.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
....................................
The source mentions a first trip in the Mar/May 1906 time frame, and then another subsequent one in late 1906, early 1907. If you could vet the claim through the manifests, it would be helpful.
-
Two other thoughts as David and Mike are getting tedious.
The current 1st hole runs to the east and into the rising sun. The current 18th runs to the west and into the setting sun. Was it not part of the design ethos in the early 1900's not to do that. The originally intended 1st and 18th both run north-south avoiding the rising and setting sun issue. Maybe CBM really intended to avoid the sun issue and that was another reason he originally started at the south end of the property.
Bryan,
This is where your ignorance puts you at a disadvantage.
If you were familiar with and understood the topography you'd know that the rising and setting sun aren't a problem.
Could you explain how the topography means the rising and setting sun aren't a problem please.
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
Why don't you check with the source that provided that suggestion ?
I got it from the source. What good would asking again do? Vetting it through the manifests would give independent verification (or not), but then you knew that before your unhelpful response.
-
The source mentions a first trip in the Mar/May 1906 time frame, and then another subsequent one in late 1906, early 1907. If you could vet the claim through the manifests, it would be helpful.
Why don't you provide us with the basis for the claim, and then we can go for there?
-
David,
Thanks for your response. I think I've identified the source of our different interpretations about the timeline and I'll try to explain my reasoning in depth later today or tomorrow.
-
Mike, it was a simple question: By CBM's account, which of those two events happened first? There's no need for yet another long "in depth" retelling of your perception of our differences, I'm just curious to see your answer to that one straightforward question.
-
David,
Your simple question is based on assumption that I believe is incorrect. I'll explain more later.
-
For what it's worth the land assembly at NGLA looks to have more parts than I would have thought. So far, in searching the current tax rolls I've come up with six pieces of property than are taxed separately that are owned by NGLA or National Golf Club. The main piece is 185.3 acres. The second is 1.9 acres that appears to be behind the 9th green on Rt 39. The third is 52.6 acres at 394 Sebonac Rd (Pat might want to search that one on Google Maps). The other three are 1.4 acres, 7.4 acres, and 4.0 acres. The other four all have street addresses on Sebonac Inlet Rd.
There may be more pieces. There's a lot of properties on the tax rolls.
Now, if we can find the deeds for these properties ................
-
Bryan,
I wonder if the 20 acres CBM sold to Sabin south of Sebonac Rd in 1920 was the difference between 185 and 205?
-
Two other thoughts as David and Mike are getting tedious.
The current 1st hole runs to the east and into the rising sun. The current 18th runs to the west and into the setting sun. Was it not part of the design ethos in the early 1900's not to do that. The originally intended 1st and 18th both run north-south avoiding the rising and setting sun issue. Maybe CBM really intended to avoid the sun issue and that was another reason he originally started at the south end of the property.
Bryan,
This is where your ignorance puts you at a disadvantage.
If you were familiar with and understood the topography you'd know that the rising and setting sun aren't a problem.
Could you explain how the topography means the rising and setting sun aren't a problem please.
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
Why don't you check with the source that provided that suggestion ?
I got it from the source. What good would asking again do? Vetting it through the manifests would give independent verification (or not), but then you knew that before your unhelpful response.
Bryan,
The most likely reason sun isn't a huge issue on hole 1 is it faces more E to SE. Holes facing NE are the ones that have to deal with the early morning setting sun, especially on the water/sea level with no hills, structures, etc. to block the sun for the first few hours after it rises.
But, like the sun rising every morning, Patrick has taken the opportunity to call someone ignorant!
-
Mike, My simple question provided you a verbatim account from CBM, and asked you to place the events in chronological order. If you really need time to prepare a long explanation, then perhaps you should consider whether you truly are following the facts in your analysis.
Also, I am still waiting for straight answer to two more straightforward questions I asked you days ago. From the perspective of CBM and the developer:
- Were the building lots in the development convenient to NGLA, or not?
- Was the developer looking to generate business from NGLA's membership, or not?
_______________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, Now that you are posting again, care to set the record straight regarding your bombastic accusations from the other night? If you've had a chance to reread the relevant portions of Scotland's Gift you know that my summary of the chronology is straight out of the book.
____________________________________________________________
For what it's worth the land assembly at NGLA looks to have more parts than I would have thought. So far, in searching the current tax rolls I've come up with six pieces of property than are taxed separately that are owned by NGLA or National Golf Club. The main piece is 185.3 acres. The second is 1.9 acres that appears to be behind the 9th green on Rt 39. The third is 52.6 acres at 394 Sebonac Rd (Pat might want to search that one on Google Maps). The other three are 1.4 acres, 7.4 acres, and 4.0 acres. The other four all have street addresses on Sebonac Inlet Rd.
There may be more pieces. There's a lot of properties on the tax rolls.
Now, if we can find the deeds for these properties ................
Thanks Bryan.
A few more transactions for you to consider:
From the Sag Harbor Express, 1907-11-28: The National Golf Club has bought from Capt. Hubert A. White four acres of land bordering on the west side of Sebonac Creek.
From the Sag Harbor Express, 1910-10-06: S. J. Raynor and wife to National Golf Links of America, lot west side of Ram Island Path, adjoining Sebonac, town of Southampton.
For what it is worth, CBM reportedly purchased much of his estate from the estate of Hubert A. White, so while it certainly could be, I am not sure that this is even golf course property. (According to the watershed website, It looks like Sebonac Creek curves way east and around that land.) (Keep in mind that according to something Sven posted earlier, CBM may have held the deed on the primary property before a certain date, so we might have to sort out what was CBM's estate and what was golf course for the early transactions.)
As for the different names, "National Golf Club" was the name used during development and (I believe) before incorporation, so the properties in the "National Golf Club" name may be properties acquired earlier. (Somewhere in these threads there is a discussion and an article about the name. I recall Travis takes credit for some aspect of the name.)
-
8) from Suffolk County GIS...
i would assume boundary line for shaded property is taxable real estate?
North Side
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ngla-n_zps4apbq5ya.png)
South Side
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ngla-s_zpsimlano5t.png)
Probably should measure, eh?
-
Steve:
Is there a way to capture what you just posted with the transparency adjusted so that we can see how the course fits within those boundaries?
Sven
-
Good stuff Steve. Yes, measuring would be good. Or, I can do it later tonight.
I'd guess that the small acreage parcels that are listed on Sebonac Inlet Drive are the ones up near Ram Island. The little triangle at the south end is probably the 1.9 acre one.
The 185 acres maybe is the main area north of Srubland Rd and the 52 acres is maybe the main area south of Shrubland. Of course that adds up to more than 205 acres.
-
Sven,
Should be doable but I can't check on my phone at the moment. You can certainly do it with the topography contours.
-
8) Sven, there's probably enough indicators or line extensions to get pretty close outline on Google Earth and measure it up. The GIS topo viewing looks interesting. Must have been a really nice horseback riding area, other than the bugs when the wind was down..
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/2f8d3c04-7e23-49ef-aa22-63721b1dd78d_zpswrvxiv0q.png)
-
Bryan,
I think the various parcels may have been more a matter of disassembly than "assembly." I punched the addresses off the tax rolls into the GIS viewers, and it looks like at least some the 185 Acre parcel is the main golf course parcel, and at least some of the smaller parcels are on the east side of Sebonac Inlet Road. (The even addresses are on east of the road.) So for example, the 7.4 acre parcel is that little thumb to the east of the road near Ram's Island, and the 4.0 parcel is just north of that, etc.. Of course road acreage needs to be substracted out.
The 52.6 acre parcel is a bit of a mystery as the address doesn't pop up on the viewer, but my bet is that it is the parcel between Bullshead, Bay, Sebonac Inlet Road, Barker's Island Road, and White's Ln. (Undeveloped land but not part of the golf course.)
ADDED: I see our posts crossed. See my comments on the 52.6 acre parcel.
-
Actually, Bryan, Looking at it again you may be correct about the about the 185 being N of Shrubland and the 52 being south.
ADDED: Surely Steve's will be more accurate and but, I did a tentative measure and of the parcels N and S of Shrubland, and they seem to check out at about 185 and 52.
-
Here are the properties from the tax rolls on the parcel maps Steve posted above, with the addresses and acreage from the tax rolls.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-N-of-Shrubland.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-S-of-Shrubland.jpg)
-
David,
Please be patient.
You're not the only one who gets to write long, rambling, often erroneous posts here. Give me a chance to catch up. ;)
-
Take your time Mike. I'm enjoying the conversation about the boundaries.
(This Post has been edited after I thought better of the original.)
-
I am enjoying it too David but I'm still curious how the exercise is going to get us to the original metes and bounds of the 205 acres acquired in 1907? Still, it is fun to watch.
Also keep in mind that at some point CBM owned 20 acres adjacent to the west of his 8th and 9th hole which he sold to Charles Sabin in 1920. I'm not sure where that fits in the puzzle.
-
Bryan,
The most likely reason sun isn't a huge issue on hole 1 is it faces more E to SE. Holes facing NE are the ones that have to deal with the early morning setting sun, especially on the water/sea level with no hills, structures, etc. to block the sun for the first few hours after it rises.
Jeff,
Topography, topography, topography.
But, like the sun rising every morning, Patrick has taken the opportunity to call someone ignorant!
Jeff,
More sniveling and whining from you, what a surprise.
Don't you know that we're all ignorant, just on different topics.
Bryan has never played NGLA so he's ignorant when it comes to understanding the topography on the 1st and 18th holes and how it counters the impact of the sun.
Do yourself a favor and stay out of my exchanges with other people.
Bryan is capable of taking care of himself and doesn't need you to go running to the teacher, sniveling and whining.
He didn't get anointed a colossal moron without earning that title and certainly without your help..
-
While I'm still on the road and on my phone and unable to type verbosely or reference some things I would like to in response to your questions David, I did think of one question for you if I might.
Steve ' s nice survey generously shows the golf course as taking up approximately 165 acres. I say generously because it includes all of the area between the holes which at places is fairly significant and includes things like windmills and other building facilities but let's stick with the whole 165 for discussion.
If the course was mostly "roughly" routed by Dec 1906 but the boundaries of the purchase had yet to be determined, then why would Macdonald secure 40 or 50 acres more than he needed? I get that he would have likely wanted to protect those areas along 16, 17, and 18 between the course and the water but the number 205 is a bit too coincidental, wouldn't you agree?
Are you saying it was pure coincidence and happenstance that Macdonald ' s agreement with the Founders estimated needing 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for clubhouse and the remainder to be used for 1.5 acre lots for the 60 Founders which totalled 205 acres and then remarkably CBM somewhat astonishingly in Dec 1906, without any determined boundaries and the next five months to be devoted to determine the holes to build and deciding their distances, just happened to secure the exact same number based on eyeballing the rough routing in waist high overgrowth across hundreds of acres.?
I hope he played that number in the Lotto. ;)
-
Mike & David,
It's clear that the earliest of holes that CBM wanted to build, at locations he quickly discovered, in conjunction with the location of the SI and the clubhouse site, predetermined the routing and land to be purchased to accommodate that routing.
This wasn't a case where the architect bought a piece of property and then determined the routing and designed the individual holes within that property.
In this case CBM could chose the property he wanted from amongst the available 405 acres.
He chose this particular configuration because he had FIRST located his holes and determined the routing of the entire course, discarding the acreage he didn't need for his dream course.
If an architect came into possession of those 405 acres today, and wasn't predisposed to replicate templates, it would be highly doubtful that NGLA's property lines would be what they are today.
The land occupied by some of the holes, clubhouse and parking lot at Sebonack would seem far more ideal than the land for holes such as # 9 and # 10 at NGLA.
CBM had a mission to create the "ideal" golf course, an "ideal" course composed of the best holes in existence, which he identified, studied and charted. And, in the land at NGLA he found the land that would readily accept and accommodate those holes, and the location of the those holes predetermined the routing for the entire course.
Hence, he knew, prior to purchasing the land, where each hole would be located.
-
Mike,
In looking at the golf course, do you see any excess land or do you think the routing is pretty tight to the property lines.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ngla1_zpsnljkhvkd.png)
-
Mike,
Where are you getting your spare 40 or 50 acres from ?
Steve's estimate of 165 acres doesn't include the land adjacent to Bullhead Bay or the land north of the 18th tee or the land east of the 13th green .
That probably adds up to 30-40 acres, but I'll let Steve quantify the acreage.
You also have to remember that NGLA owned the land that the original Cape hole was sitused on, which was lost to the road.
I think, when you factor in all of those odd parcels that NGLA owns outside of Steve's red lines, that you're zeroing in on 205 acres
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ngla1_zpsnljkhvkd.png)
-
Pat,
That doesn't answer where things stood in Dec 1906.
Coincidence? Astounding, no?
-
Pat,
That doesn't answer where things stood in Dec 1906.
WHY NOT ?
Coincidence? Astounding, no?
-
Pat,
Read Macdonald ' s own words as reported the day after he secured the 205 acres of property in Dec 1906.
-
8) Boundary Business -1, for your enjoyment...
Did anyone notice the difference between the blueprint NW boundary and the aerials or GIS plot?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw-1_zpszcc59vco.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw-2_zpsdkwjjjnk.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw-3_zpsmpwdn6ov.png)
just wondering..
post-dinner, it turns out to measure 2.5 acres
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw5_zpscwcyy1wb.png)
-
Pat,
Read Macdonald ' s own words as reported the day after he secured the 205 acres of property in Dec 1906.
Mike,
You're missing the point.
CBM could probably have obtained any portion of the 450 acres for his golf course, but, he chose a unique configuration that followed the siting of his "template" holes.
The land forms that best accomodated his "templates" determined the routing.
When you look at holes #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 13 and 14 along with the fact that he stated that the land included a quarter mile on Peconic Bay (Hole #18) and a mile of land adjacent to Bullhead Bay (hole # 's 14, 15, 16 and 17) the routing is essentially set.
Then, when you consider the location of the SI, the routing was essentially set in stone, and that routing determined the land he optioned, to the exclusion of the other 245 acres of land, also ideal for golf.
As the crow flies, from the road traversing the inlet/pond on # 13, to the northern most point is about 9/10ths of a mile.
So when CMB stated that they had a mile of land adjacent to Bullhead bay, a quarter mile of land on Peconic Bay, in conjunction with the "template" holes he found first and easiest, only a lefty moron, aspiring for colossal moron status, could deny that the routing had been determined prior to the securing of the option in November of 1906.
And, once the land was purchased in the spring of 1907, development commenced immediately.
Not planning, not designing, but development.
-
I dare not venture into this discussion, but when I see the name of Walter Travis mentioned, my eyes perk up. In an earlier post, David discusses the naming of the course and refers to Travis as having suggested the name. According to a bit in the November 1914 The American Golfer, pg 28-29, there is this: "The name of the Club was decided upon by Mr. Macdonald as the National Golf Course of America, but upon the suggestion of Mr. Travis, it was subsequently changed to the National Golf Links of America".
Ed
www.travissociety.com
-
Here are the properties from the tax rolls on the parcel maps Steve posted above, with the addresses and acreage from the tax rolls.
David,
You've left off the land between White's Lane and Sebonac Inlet Rd, which is owned by NGLA.
In fact, the old entrance gate to the clubhouse, on White's Lane remains, west of Sebonac Inlet Rd.
There's another piece of property west of White's Lane that's been owned by a long time member and I wonder if that parcel was once owned by NGLA and sold to that member decades ago.
And,, I believe that NGLA owns the land south of White's Lane, to the boundary line.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-N-of-Shrubland.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-S-of-Shrubland.jpg)
-
Patrick,
It is a bit confusing to look at, but I am going by the lin gray lines which denote the different parcels. So the land between Sebonac Inlet Rd. and the old entry road is included in the 129 Acre parcel, as is the land on the other side of the old entry road, all the way to Scrubland Rd. Then the 52.6 Acre parcel starts on the other side of Scrubland (which I think is also called Sebonac.)
I only marked the parcels that showed up under National Golf Links or National Golf Course on the tax roll.
-
8) Some more measurements... fyi these total 219 acres, neglecting the Bull Head Bay shoreline and inlet road
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/n1a_zpsrus1qgcn.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/s3_zps6zp7h2bf.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/s1_zpsbqqm6lvi.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/s2_zpsksns2v6c.png)
and a check back to the blueprint, look larger than the GIS based area and there's some small shape difference, looks a little wider and more N-S oriented
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/bp3_zpsos9mwzk9.png)
-
Pat,
I understand and largely agree how all of those things ultimately determined the routing.
But you're still talking about the golf course as it became by sometime in 1907, not what was envisioned in late 1906 when CBM secured 205 acres consistent with his agreement with the Founding members down to the exact acreage. Over the next five or so months, that all changed.
-
Pat,
I understand and largely agree how all of those things ultimately determined the routing.
But you're still talking about the golf course as it became by sometime in 1907, not what was envisioned in late 1906 when CBM secured 205 acres consistent with his agreement with the Founding members down to the exact acreage.
That's where we disagree.
CBM had routed the course prior to obtaining the option in 1906.
CBM purchased the land based upon his routing and that routing had nothing to do with any understanding with the founding members.
Over the next five or so months, that all changed.
Nothing changed between the fall of 1906 and the Spring of 1907.
The design of the course was set in stone when CBM decided what land he wanted to option in the fall of 1906.
-
Mike you keep saying it was "down to the exact acreage" but 205 does not equal 200.
-
Mike you keep saying it was "down to the exact acreage" but 205 does not equal 200.
Nor does it equal 165...
Pat,
Why did CBM say they still needed to figure a lot of it out over the next several months?
-
Thanks Ed. That is to what I was referring.
______________________________________
Mike and Jim,
I addressed Steve's first set of measurements in post 515.
-
Steve,
I've been trying to use your first course measure (165 yards) in an overlay I was working on. I can't get it to line up with other aerials. Any chance it got distorted somewhere in the process?
-
Also Steve, I'm trying to make sense of your latest numbers. Any idea why your numbers a bit different from the county's? For example you have the area N of the road at 170.5 acres (148.5+22) where the county has 185.5. I've tried to measure it myself and my number is much closer to the county's number. With the area S of the road you get 46.5, where the county gets 52.6.
-
Jeff,
Thanks for the explanation. Patrick, of course, has subsequently added more bluster to his non-answer.
But regarding your answer, my question would be: does the rising/setting sun impact on a hole not depend on the time of year and your latitude? On my home course the 18th is directly into the setting sun for a period in mid summer when the sunset is 30* north of due west. In spring and fall the sunset is 30* off of directly into our eyes.
I agree that the tee shot at the 1st at NGLA is indeed maybe a little south of east. That would suggest to me that the sunrise might be a problem in March and September, October. The 18th starts a little north of west so I'd expect some issue a little later in the spring and earlier in the fall.
But, Pat was talking about topography, not planetary orbits. Maybe there are some mountains out there east and west on Long Island that block out the rising and setting suns at NGLA. ;D But, we'll never know because Pat rarely follows up with any real answers.
Two other thoughts as David and Mike are getting tedious.
The current 1st hole runs to the east and into the rising sun. The current 18th runs to the west and into the setting sun. Was it not part of the design ethos in the early 1900's not to do that. The originally intended 1st and 18th both run north-south avoiding the rising and setting sun issue. Maybe CBM really intended to avoid the sun issue and that was another reason he originally started at the south end of the property.
Bryan,
This is where your ignorance puts you at a disadvantage.
If you were familiar with and understood the topography you'd know that the rising and setting sun aren't a problem.
Could you explain how the topography means the rising and setting sun aren't a problem please.
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
Why don't you check with the source that provided that suggestion ?
I got it from the source. What good would asking again do? Vetting it through the manifests would give independent verification (or not), but then you knew that before your unhelpful response.
Bryan,
The most likely reason sun isn't a huge issue on hole 1 is it faces more E to SE. Holes facing NE are the ones that have to deal with the early morning setting sun, especially on the water/sea level with no hills, structures, etc. to block the sun for the first few hours after it rises.
But, like the sun rising every morning, Patrick has taken the opportunity to call someone ignorant!
-
Steve,
Don't you know that topo map is worthless because Patrick says they can't tell that that's a private driveway and not Whites Lane in the middle of it. ;)
Just kidding of course. I think it's a really good topo map.
8) Sven, there's probably enough indicators or line extensions to get pretty close outline on Google Earth and measure it up. The GIS topo viewing looks interesting. Must have been a really nice horseback riding area, other than the bugs when the wind was down..
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/2f8d3c04-7e23-49ef-aa22-63721b1dd78d_zpswrvxiv0q.png)
-
8) Dave,
I would not be surprized if lot lines and surveys don't reconcile, especially from old vs new plats and survey drawings used for tax records with the county clerk vs GE data. Many a benchmark are MIA and lots modified by adverse possession, things filled in and roads moved...
I tried to calibrate my area measurements on the distance between Whites Ln, and old Shrubland Road and then a straight width of Shrubland that crosses the course both off of GE. The last measurements were made after pasting into Acrobat, applying a scale ratio for my benchmark distances and using the measuring tool. A bad scale ratio could be the cause of the 5-10% delta, or simply where the mouse traced...
In regard to the 170 vs 185, I'm guessing perhaps the road and space to the shoreline that I didn't include ??? ???
In regard to the south area, I was wondering about the width of things at Shrubland Rd.
WE can test if you want to send me your files and I'll see if they change when ported or measured between my programs.
-
Bryan,
I think the various parcels may have been more a matter of disassembly than "assembly."
Not sure what you mean by disassembly. Are you suggesting that the little parcels were broken off from the larger parcel? Would it be logical to disassemble a little piece and then sell it to themselves? Seems more likely to me that they didn't buy the little stuff to the east of the road initially because it was part of what CBM needed. The club may have acquired it later for privacy. All just speculation so far.
I punched the addresses off the tax rolls into the GIS viewers, and it looks like at least some the 185 Acre parcel is the main golf course parcel, and at least some of the smaller parcels are on the east side of Sebonac Inlet Road. (The even addresses are on east of the road.) So for example, the 7.4 acre parcel is that little thumb to the east of the road near Ram's Island, and the 4.0 parcel is just north of that, etc.. Of course road acreage needs to be substracted out.
The 52.6 acre parcel is a bit of a mystery as the address doesn't pop up on the viewer, but my bet is that it is the parcel between Bullshead, Bay, Sebonac Inlet Road, Barker's Island Road, and White's Ln. (Undeveloped land but not part of the golf course.)
I see you now agree that it is likely the piece south of Shrubland Rd. What persuaded me is that if you plug the address into Google Maps, the address comes up on E Rd, the dirt path up the middle of the southern section of NGLA. I guess that the E Rd was once an extension of Sebonac Rd and that Google picked up that name and location from their mapping source (maybe Suffolk County).
ADDED: I see our posts crossed. See my comments on the 52.6 acre parcel.
-
David,
Just curious, did you measure these or just attribute the acreages to what looks like the likely property? They look likely to me too. The deeds might help us nail it down definitively.
Here are the properties from the tax rolls on the parcel maps Steve posted above, with the addresses and acreage from the tax rolls.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-N-of-Shrubland.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-S-of-Shrubland.jpg)
-
Mike,
I'm not convinced that that's where the 20 acres was. It could have been part of Ballyshear or some other property we don't know of.
I am enjoying it too David but I'm still curious how the exercise is going to get us to the original metes and bounds of the 205 acres acquired in 1907? Still, it is fun to watch.
Also keep in mind that at some point CBM owned 20 acres adjacent to the west of his 8th and 9th hole which he sold to Charles Sabin in 1920. I'm not sure where that fits in the puzzle.
-
Interesting. No, I didn't notice the difference but I find the blueprint really hard to see/read. I need to do some more searching, because I haven't yet found the tax roll for the 2.5 acre property. I'm not sure if David found it either.
8) Boundary Business -1, for your enjoyment...
Did anyone notice the difference between the blueprint NW boundary and the aerials or GIS plot?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw-1_zpszcc59vco.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw-2_zpsdkwjjjnk.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw-3_zpsmpwdn6ov.png)
just wondering..
post-dinner, it turns out to measure 2.5 acres
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/nw5_zpscwcyy1wb.png)
-
Bryan,
The reason I think it "disassembly" is because the road along Bullshead Bay wasn't there when the course opened. At some point after the road got built it must have been deeded over to the county (let the county pay to maintain it) but not the small bit of land between the road and the water. So those pieces got broken off by the road but still belonged to NGLA.
(The road may also help explain part of the reason the property seems to have substantially grown over the years. Some eastern sections of the course used to be the swampy shores of Bullsead Bay, but have since been filled.)
As for the 52 acre parcel, I thought it funny that the address popped up on google maps but did not the county viewer. Maybe patrick is onto something.
-
Interesting. No, I didn't notice the difference but I find the blueprint really hard to see/read. I need to do some more searching, because I haven't yet found the tax roll for the 2.5 acre property. I'm not sure if David found it either.
8) Boundary Business -1, for your enjoyment...
Did anyone notice the difference between the blueprint NW boundary and the aerials or GIS plot?
Bryan and Steve, I did notice that the area for the proshop is not included on the blueprint. Bryan, this is one of the reasons I think that the 2.5 acre purchase was the proshop.
As for the "tax roll" it is included in the "185.3 Acres" at 129 Sebonic Inlet Road.
-
This stuff is not easy to do. Metes and bounds of deeds is probably the most exact way, but even that is difficult with the tools we have available. Finding deed metes and bounds starting points that were relevant in the early 1900's is not so easy now.
I'll give the measuring a shot when I get a chance (baby sitting grandkids this week), but I imagine in advance that it'll come out close to the county's numbers.
Assuming the county's acreages are right and the property outlines are about right, the two main properties are 237 acres. CBM supposedly bought 205. Where the heck are those extra 32 acres. The current property outline doesn't look much different than the early map we've looked at many times and assumed that it defined the boundaries. Whatever variances we see don't seem to add up to 32 acres.
8) Dave,
I would not be surprized if lot lines and surveys don't reconcile, especially from old vs new plats and survey drawings used for tax records with the county clerk vs GE data. Many a benchmark are MIA and lots modified by adverse possession, things filled in and roads moved...
I tried to calibrate my area measurements on the distance between Whites Ln, and old Shrubland Road and then a straight width of Shrubland that crosses the course both off of GE. The last measurements were made after pasting into Acrobat, applying a scale ratio for my benchmark distances and using the measuring tool. A bad scale ratio could be the cause of the 5-10% delta, or simply where the mouse traced...
In regard to the 170 vs 185, I'm guessing perhaps the road and space to the shoreline that I didn't include ??? ???
In regard to the south area, I was wondering about the width of things at Shrubland Rd.
WE can test if you want to send me your files and I'll see if they change when ported or measured between my programs.
-
David,
Maybe patrick is onto something.
Seems quite unlikely to me on this subject. ;D :o
__________________________________________
Re the 2.5 acres, did you see something in the tax rolls that told you it was included in the 185.3 acres. Or, are you deducing it? The 2.5 acres was bought a few years after the main property. What would be the legal process to integrate the 2.5 acres into the larger property after the fact. If the main property was in fact one piece when CBM bought it, and was split afterwards, what would the legal process be for that?
Interesting. No, I didn't notice the difference but I find the blueprint really hard to see/read. I need to do some more searching, because I haven't yet found the tax roll for the 2.5 acre property. I'm not sure if David found it either.
8) Boundary Business -1, for your enjoyment...
Did anyone notice the difference between the blueprint NW boundary and the aerials or GIS plot?
Bryan and Steve, I did notice that the area for the proshop is not included on the blueprint. Bryan, this is one of the reasons I think that the 2.5 acre purchase was the proshop.
As for the "tax roll" it is included in the "185.3 Acres" at 129 Sebonic Inlet Road.
-
Steve and Bryan,
You guys are probably aware of this but at the viewer Bryan linked earlier (http://gis2.suffolkcountyny.gov/GISViewer/) there is a "Parcel Data" setting showing the individual parcels from the tax rolls (very light lines.)( A screen shot of the setting . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/parcel-map-ex.jpg)
Steve you mentioned offline that you have Google Earth Pro. Perhaps the best way to get an accurate acreage is to pull the parcel layer into GEP and measure using the advanced tools. Or you could use my images below. I hate to make up thing for you to do, but if the mood strikes you . . . something to kill time while you are waiting on the discussion of the fire.
________________________________
Speaking of the blueprint, I have been messing around a scan (of George's scan) and it is pretty interesting. The lines aren't perfect but they are close, except for the area to the east of the Sahara, Alps, and Hogsback. As was mentioned the pro shop area is not on the blueprint.
From looking closely at the map, I am beginning to develop some theories on how the course was mapped out. It looks like CBM first found green sites, then had Raynor survey straight line (center line) elevations from green to green, bunkers and tees ("T") were probably added later, although some natural bunkers might have been there from the beginning.
In short, I think the blueprint cuts against the idea that CBM had the property fully surveyed with elevations before it was planned. In order to do straight line surveys, you need starting and ending points, and the starting and ending points seem were the greens themselves. So the greens came first, then the elevations. At least on this survey.
Here is the overlay showing the parcel data (yellow) along with the blueprint border (red) as best as I could fit it. (And the shoreline off the blueprint (orange.))
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-Borders-N.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-Borders-S.jpg)
Some of the green sites off the survey are marked as well (white.) I tried to use these for alignment.
-
.3 acres. Or, are you deducing it? The 2.5 acres was bought a few years after the main property. What would be the legal process to integrate the 2.5 acres into the larger property after the fact. If the main property was in fact one piece when CBM bought it, and was split afterwards, what would the legal process be for that?
I looked up the parcel on the Viewer and one can see that the "129 Sebonac Inlet Rd" Parcel includes the pro shop area. For that matter it includes the clubhouse area as well. And the pro shop area isn't on the blueprint so I deduced it was added after the blueprint was created.
I am no property or tax lawyer, but I think that, generally, contiguous parcels can be consolidated provided certain conditions are met (exact same owner in same name, no liens, restrictions, etc, similar tax classification, etc.
If I had to bet on why 340 Sebonac Inlet Rd. is not consolidated with 308 Sebonac Inlet Rd., I'd bet it is because 340 is owned by 'National Golf Club' whereas 308 is owned by 'National Golf Links of America.'
-
This stuff is not easy to do. Metes and bounds of deeds is probably the most exact way, but even that is difficult with the tools we have available. Finding deed metes and bounds starting points that were relevant in the early 1900's is not so easy now.
Assuming the county's acreages are right and the property outlines are about right, the two main properties are 237 acres. CBM supposedly bought 205. Where the heck are those extra 32 acres. The current property outline doesn't look much different than the early map we've looked at many times and assumed that it defined the boundaries. Whatever variances we see don't seem to add up to 32 acres.
First, while I think the metes will help us understand the western border, I doubt deeds will be much help with the eastern border. My guess is that the deeds describe the boundary ("bound") as Bullshead Bay and the Peconic. Generally (depending on navigability and on the jurisdiction) this would mean that he owned up to the high water line. Looking at the blueprint, the eastern boundary is very different today than it was in 1906.
This also may also start to explain from where the 32 came. Take the 12 acre triangle at the northwest corner for example. On the 1904 map that is almost all water. So it may not have been part of the 32 acres. And a substantial bit along the eastern border was swampy. This gets us part of the way there.
-
Jeff,
Thanks for the explanation. Patrick, of course, has subsequently added more bluster to his non-answer.
Bryan,
Anyone who has played NGLA understands my answer.
It's your ignorance that causes you to categorize my response as "bluster"
Likewise, Jeff doesn't have a clue about playing NGLA
But regarding your answer, my question would be: does the rising/setting sun impact on a hole not depend on the time of year and your latitude? On my home course the 18th is directly into the setting sun for a period in mid summer when the sunset is 30* north of due west. In spring and fall the sunset is 30* off of directly into our eyes.
I agree that the tee shot at the 1st at NGLA is indeed maybe a little south of east. That would suggest to me that the sunrise might be a problem in March and September, October. The 18th starts a little north of west so I'd expect some issue a little later in the spring and earlier in the fall.
You moron, of course the tee shot is a problem on # 1 in March.
The course is closed in March, you can't play it.
But, Pat was talking about topography, not planetary orbits. Maybe there are some mountains out there east and west on Long Island that block out the rising and setting suns at NGLA. ;D But, we'll never know because Pat rarely follows up with any real answers.
You're getting warmer.
If you were familiar with the topography, the dates and hours of operations, you'd have figured it out by now.
This is what happens when you present yourself as being knowledgeable about NGLA, when you really don't have a clue.
As I said, we're all ignorant, just about different topics, and NGLA is one of yours.😆,
Two other thoughts as David and Mike are getting tedious.
The current 1st hole runs to the east and into the rising sun. The current 18th runs to the west and into the setting sun. Was it not part of the design ethos in the early 1900's not to do that. The originally intended 1st and 18th both run north-south avoiding the rising and setting sun issue. Maybe CBM really intended to avoid the sun issue and that was another reason he originally started at the south end of the property.
Bryan,
This is where your ignorance puts you at a disadvantage.
If you were familiar with and understood the topography you'd know that the rising and setting sun aren't a problem.
Could you explain how the topography means the rising and setting sun aren't a problem please.
The source I've seen also suggests he made another overseas trip in late 1906 and early 1907 and following that trip that he winnowed down his template holes from Scotland and his original concept holes to his final 18. Anybody aware of this trip? Can it be verified through ship manifests?
Why don't you check with the source that provided that suggestion ?
I got it from the source. What good would asking again do? Vetting it through the manifests would give independent verification (or not), but then you knew that before your unhelpful response.
Bryan,
The most likely reason sun isn't a huge issue on hole 1 is it faces more E to SE. Holes facing NE are the ones that have to deal with the early morning setting sun, especially on the water/sea level with no hills, structures, etc. to block the sun for the first few hours after it rises.
But, like the sun rising every morning, Patrick has taken the opportunity to call someone ignorant!
-
Mike you keep saying it was "down to the exact acreage" but 205 does not equal 200.
Nor does it equal 165...
Pat,
Why did CBM say they still needed to figure a lot of it out over the next several months?
Where did he say that ?
But, let me answer for you.
If you've read "Scotland's Gift" you begin to realize that CBM never stopped designing/tinkering with the golf course for 20 years after inception.
He changed yardages by moving tees, he added and changed bunkers and I would imagine had to figure out which green contours he wished to introduce.
-
Pat,
I understand and largely agree how all of those things ultimately determined the routing.
But you're still talking about the golf course as it became by sometime in 1907, not what was envisioned in late 1906 when CBM secured 205 acres consistent with his agreement with the Founding members down to the exact acreage. Over the next five or so months, that all changed.
Mike,
I think you're forgetting that CBM told you that he routed the course first, then placed the holes he desired on the sites he deemed appropriate.
One could also state that he found the location for the holes he wanted and that process then determined the routing.
But, it's clear, he had designed the course on paper and only needed to acquire the land to fulfill his dream
CBM states: "The Company agreed to sell us 205 acres, AND WE WERE PERMITTED TO LOCATE IT AS BEST TO SERVE OUR PURPOSES.
Again, we studied the contours earnestly,
SELECTING THOSE THAT WOULD FIT IN NATURALLY WITH THE VARIOUS CLASSICAL
HOLES I HAD IN MIND,
AFTER WHICH WE STAKED OUT THE LAND WE WANTED.
Subsequent to that, he optioned the land he had staked out..
So, the minute CBM staked out the land he wanted, the routing had been determined.
I don't know why you're having such a difficult time understanding that ?
-
Here, among other similar quotes.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8716/16691032973_ee694cfd7b_z.jpg)
I agree that he knew he would fit his course in the land optioned...and that he had located several holes but that's a long way from the routing being set in stone. The acreage to purchase, yes...the hole concepts, no.
How many of the green sites do you think he had located prior to optioning the land? Other than the four or five referenced directly, are there any others?
-
Here, among other similar quotes.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8716/16691032973_ee694cfd7b_z.jpg)
I agree that he knew he would fit his course in the land optioned...and that he had located several holes but that's a long way from the routing being set in stone. The acreage to purchase, yes...the hole concepts, no.
Jim,
Another newspaper article ? ? ?
Versus "Scotland's Gift" ?
You did read the portion of the article that referenced distances, didn't you.
The article is in direct conflict with CBM's written words in "Scotland's Gift", where he stated, in advance, what holes he wished to introduce.
He had decided on the holes and their location long before a committee would meet to decide which holes and where.
A committee which was basically non-existant and probably for promotional purposes early in the project.
Several holes ?
It was the entirety of his hole concepts that was the basis for creating this course.
He stated that his intent was to reproduce the various classical holes he had in mind.
He had them in mind PRIOR to inspecting the property.
He had them in mind when he studied the property.
He had them in mind when he located the sites and optioned the property.
Reread "Scotland's Gift"
[/size]
How many of the green sites do you think he had located prior to optioning the land?
My guess, in terms of the general area................ 18[/size]
Other than the four or five referenced directly, are there any others?
Yes,
Please read chapter IX "Inception of Ideal Golf Course"
I think it will provide some insight relative to the holes he had in mind before optioning the land.
But, ask yourself this question.
If he studied the land and could pick any 205 of the 450 acres, and he stated that after studying the land he selected the land that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind, and then he staked out the entire parcel he wanted, do you think he only had four or five holes in mind, when he staked out the land, as you stated ?
Or, do you think he had his full compliment in mind, knew where the holes were going to be, and then staked out the land that would accomodate all of them ?
-
I think he knew he could build his ideal course there, as he said, but he explicitly says..."distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided upon by the committee in the next five months"...not the prior five months.
It sounds like he had well more than 18 hole concepts in mind and wanted to see which concepts best fit on the land there?
-
I think he knew he could build his ideal course there, as he said, but he explicitly says..."distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided upon by the committee in the next five months"...not the prior five months.
Jim,
You keep ignoring CBM's written words in "Scotland's Gift" where he told you the holes and their location PRIOR to staking out and optioning the land.
Why do you keep dismissing that fact.
And, it wasn't four or five holes, he named six at a minimum.
It sounds like he had well more than 18 hole concepts in mind and wanted to see which concepts best fit on the land there?
And, he knew that before he optioned the land.
Why would you search for "template" holes, study the land to see where they would fit in naturally and then buy land that you didn't know could accomodate them ?
-
Pat,
I can appreciate what he said in 1912, and don't think it was disingenuous, but I'll take his words in December 1906 as more accurate for his state of mind at the time. Kind of self evident, don't you think?
-
Pat,
I can appreciate what he said in 1912, and don't think it was disingenuous, but I'll take his words in December 1906 as more accurate for his state of mind at the time. Kind of self evident, don't you think?
How do you know that those were his words in December 1906 ?
Reread what Rich Goodale stated about "Newspaper" articles.
In December of 1906 he had already found the holes he wanted and staked out the land accordingly.
Why else do you think he would have selected that specific and unique 205 acres from the available 450 acres ?
-
Because the features he did have dictated such...no point in making it more complicated than that.
-
Because the features he did have dictated such...no point in making it more complicated than that.
Then you're in agreement, he sited his holes on the land he had studied, first, then optioned the land where those holes were to be located, YES ?
-
Jim,
Which do you believe is better land for golf, holes 9 & 10 at NGLA or the land now comprised of the clubhouse, parking lot, 10th, 17th and 18th holes at Sebonack ?
Swamps and bogs or high land overlooking Peconic Bay, absent swamps and bogs ?
-
This stuff is not easy to do. Metes and bounds of deeds is probably the most exact way, but even that is difficult with the tools we have available. Finding deed metes and bounds starting points that were relevant in the early 1900's is not so easy now.
Assuming the county's acreages are right and the property outlines are about right, the two main properties are 237 acres. CBM supposedly bought 205. Where the heck are those extra 32 acres. The current property outline doesn't look much different than the early map we've looked at many times and assumed that it defined the boundaries. Whatever variances we see don't seem to add up to 32 acres.
First, while I think the metes will help us understand the western border, I doubt deeds will be much help with the eastern border. My guess is that the deeds describe the boundary ("bound") as Bullshead Bay and the Peconic. Generally (depending on navigability and on the jurisdiction) this would mean that he owned up to the high water line. Looking at the blueprint, the eastern boundary is very different today than it was in 1906.
This also may also start to explain from where the 32 came. Take the 12 acre triangle at the northwest corner for example. On the 1904 map that is almost all water. So it may not have been part of the 32 acres. And a substantial bit along the eastern border was swampy. This gets us part of the way there.
David,
At least half the eastern border is next to land. The deeds should help with that and the southern border too. Knowing the eastern boundary would have helped SHGC recently when they built their new back tee on NGLA property.
Agreed about the triangle in the northwest corner.
Still some way to go in figuring out the differences.
-
Pat,
The general timeline isn't really in debate; he studied the whole area and located a handful of essential features to exploit, optioned the land that encompassed those features and enough for the rest of the course with the confidence he could build the rest of his course based on what he saw, then built the holes.
As to the quality of the land, clearly he saw more value in access to the Southampton Inn and roadways than the high land now used by Sebonack GC. Again, this is self-evident.
-
Pat,
I can appreciate what he said in 1912, and don't think it was disingenuous, but I'll take his words in December 1906 as more accurate for his state of mind at the time. Kind of self evident, don't you think?
Jim,
I believe "Scotland's Gift" was written in 1928, over two decades after the events in question.
And yes, I believe CBM accurately represented events in that book but believe that Pat and David are mis-interpreting it slightly, which I'll get to shortly.
-
Also keep in mind that at some point CBM owned 20 acres adjacent to the west of his 8th and 9th hole which he sold to Charles Sabin in 1920. I'm not sure where that fits in the puzzle.
Mike,
I'm not convinced that that's where the 20 acres was. It could have been part of Ballyshear or some other property we don't know of.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/17859608482_4161c60ed5.jpg)
Bryan,
From this snippet, we know it wasn't Ballyshear as that is not south of Sebonac Road. We also know that he's "adding" a farm to his larger estate, which is the area he had purchased around 1917 that included over 300 acres, much of what is today Sebonack Golf Club.
I don't think that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, do you?
-
Patrick,
So, the sun is a problem in March, but the course is closed. Then it's a problem in September too. Is the course closed then too?
As for the topography, I have no interest in playing guessing games with you. If you have something informative to add, please do. If not, don't.
-
Mike,
Fair enough. It's not part of Ballyshear. Deeds would be helpful.
Also keep in mind that at some point CBM owned 20 acres adjacent to the west of his 8th and 9th hole which he sold to Charles Sabin in 1920. I'm not sure where that fits in the puzzle.
Mike,
I'm not convinced that that's where the 20 acres was. It could have been part of Ballyshear or some other property we don't know of.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/17859608482_4161c60ed5.jpg)
Bryan,
From this snippet, we know it wasn't Ballyshear as that is not south of Sebonac Road. We also know that he's "adding" a farm to his larger estate, which is the area he had purchased around 1917 that included over 300 acres, much of what is today Sebonack Golf Club.
I don't think that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, do you?
-
Patrick,
I'm only loosely following your debate with Jim and Mike's and David's but I was struck by your comment:
I think you're forgetting that CBM told you that he routed the course first, then placed the holes he desired on the sites he deemed appropriate.
Could you provide the quote from Scotland's Gift for that. What do you (he) mean he routed the course first, if he then subsequently placed the holes on the site after the routing was done. If he didn't know what holes and where they were located on the property for all 18 holes, how did he route the course. Don't you require greens, tees, and lengths of 18 holes to do a routing?
If he said he had sites for 6 holes early on (on the 2 or 3 days on horseback), do you think that meant he knew the green site, the tee site, the hole length and the configuration of the hole at that moment. When, approximately, did he say that he figured out the green site, the tee site, the hole length and the configuration of the hole for the other 12.
-
There is neither a "problem" nor a "glaring error" with my summary of CBM's chronology of events from Scotland's Gift. And he was writing a narrative which included a chronology of events.
In contrast, your chronology flip-flops events in an way that CBM obviously did not intend, and in a way which directly contradicts the December news accounts. For example, read this excerpt from CBM:
. . . So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape.
Let me ask you . . . By CBM's account, which event happened first:
"The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose."
OR
"Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. . . ."
The answer is obvious, and it doesn't match your chronology.
___________________________________________________________
As for your claim that I made a "glaring error" about the date they first staked out the land they wanted, I disagree. By mid-December CBM had already chosen roughly 205 acres from among the 450 acres, and he provided a detailed physical description of the that parcel he intended to purchase. That would have been pretty hard to do had he not staked it out first.
CBM did say that the "exact lines" would not be staked out until the plans were complete, but so what? Do you really think the developer is going to sell an option without the land having been at least roughly marked off to show both parties the subject of the transaction?
David,
If I might, I prefer to answer your last question first and I think the answer is “Yes”, I do think the developer provided Macdonald with an “option” for 200 of the roughly 450 acres available on Sebonac Neck without the land being staked off.
Remember that CBM told us that, “the land had never been surveyed and every one thought it was more or less worthless”. We know that land wasn’t in the developer’s real estate plan that spanned thousands of acres that had been surveyed by Olmstead and Vaux. We also know that the first 120 acre site “near the (Shinneock) canal” that Macdonald wanted and the developer rejected was right smack dab in those development plans that were created in 1906.
Macdonald also told us that Sebonac Neck was so overgrown and bug-infested that it could only be traversed by horseback. I have to ask exactly how that staking would take place on such a property, because almost assuredly it hadn’t been cleared prior…who would have provided funding for such an effort that we also know from other sources didn’t take place until 1907.
So I would envision that if we were to find the written terms of that agreement it would likely refer to the 200 acres in general terms, from the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course along the natural eastern boundary of the property out to the Peconic Bay. Perhaps something like this;
“We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long. The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to us in this respect as all concerned want the course to be ideal. Bullshead Bay will be skirted for about a mile…”
Now I think we previously decided that Macdonald meant that an acre wide was 208.71 feet (time 4 acres for roughly 835 feet or 278 yards) and if we take that and multiply it by the 10,560 feet of two miles we get just slightly over 200 acres in total. Now, both are slightly off in the sense that the course wasn’t quite as long as 2 miles, even if we travel as the golfer does and not as the crow flies, and we know the width eventually varied widely across the property from over 450 yards wide in spots to areas under 200 yards. But still, CBM was describing what I would best describe as a “container”, a land parcel that included all of the natural features he and Whigham found on horseback and certainly more than enough land to build a golf course by his previous estimates.
So viewed in this light, it puts the timeline you describe in a completely different context.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5467/17971543772_ac6d97dcfb_b.jpg)
Macdonald tells us the property was little known and had never been surveyed. He also tells us it was remote, it was overgrown, it was bug-infested, and yes, everyone thought it essentially worthless (presumably for farming or real estate). He describes riding on horseback and determined that they wanted it IF they could get it for a decent price. Remember, they had previously been rebuffed on their first attempt to buy land from this developer although the developer saw value in their National golf course being located nearby, no question.
Before I go on, perhaps it is now the best time to go back in time a few months to the spring of that same year, 1906. CBM and Walter Travis have been communicating back and forth via letter as Macdonald is in Europe getting drawings of the famous holes, over 30 of them.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5459/17971248155_fc64abb618_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8764/17783412478_df56ee65ea_b.jpg)
It’s clear from this report from March 24th, 1906 that the real estate component is still in Macdonald’s plans for his new club. But how could this be? Didn’t CBM say that he made his original offer to the developer a few weeks after the real estate company purchased the land?? Actually, no he didn’t and that’s another misunderstanding we have. What he wrote was, “The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.”
This was in late 1905, but what was the next thing this eager buyer did? He planned a several months long trip abroad to study golf holes and get/make drawings of them in the spring of 1906!
The March report tells us that three Long Island sites were under consideration. I think we can safely assume that the Canal site was one of them. Other reports had him looking near Montauk. Do I think CBM had already made an offer at that time for the Canal site. No, I don’t think there’s any evidence of that at all; instead what CBM said is that a few weeks after the purchase he determined to build a course in the Shinnecock Hills if he could secure the land.
Which leads me to the question; why would Macdonald even mention a failed attempt to purchase land in his book over 20 years after the fact? I think the reason is that it was directly related to him finding the Sebonac Neck site in the first place. It’s not tough to envision a scenario where CBM makes an offer to buy the 120 acres of land near the Canal, the owner tell him that’s primo real estate, but suggests some remote, overgrown land under their control that isn’t planned to be developed for housing out on Sebonac Neck. With that, Macdonald and Whigham go for their rides, find the landforms and soils they were hoping for, and in November of 1906 they secure the right to purchase whatever 200 acres up there eventually suits their fancy for the golf course.
Macdonald signs the papers on December 14th 1906 and it’s reported in the press that weekend. All the NYC news reports mention the real estate component for the Founders and neither the Real Estate company nor Macdonald blanch at that plan, much less rebut it.
The reports announce Macdonald’s plans to use the next five months to select which holes to use, determine the yardages, plan the holes in detail, after which they will stake out the final routing and course boundaries and complete the purchase. That work is completed as planned and in May of 1907 Mortimer S. Payne is hired to supervise the imminent construction.
It’s interesting that you recently noted that you don’t think CBM routed from a topographic survey and I don’t think so either. In fact, I think he hired Raynor that spring to first survey the boundaries as they were determined and then to create a topographical map to compare to his overseas drawings and therefore guide construction. Here’s how CBM referred to Raynor’s work there; ”Employing him to survey our Sebonac Neck property I was so much impressed with his dependability and seriousness I had him make a contour map and later gave him my surveyor’s maps which I had brought from Scotland and England, telling him that I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to those maps.” Notice the "our" suggesting it was already purchased or at least secured by then.
After securing the land in December of 1906 (i.e. “The company agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose”, almost exactly what Macdonald is quoted in December 15th news reports), CBM wrote; “Again, (as in, for the second time) we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes we had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.”
In his next paragraph, Macdonald tells us more about the property they found and some of the natural landforms to accommodate his redan, an Alps, a place with a water carry for his version of an Eden. And yes, these were all found prior to December 1906 during his rides around the property with Whigham (interesting that he doesn’t name Travis who later claimed to be part of that activity, but that’s a discussion for another day.)
Then, almost as an after-thought, or perhaps remembering the differences between the accessibility, planned surrounds, and purpose of the two different sites, he writes; ”The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, where thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us – a much desired situation. When playing golf you want to be alone with Nature.”
In the next paragraph CBM tells us more about the timing of events; "We obtained an option on the property in November 1906 and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. Immediately we commenced development.”
So, I hope you’ll understand that our respective interpretations of what CBM wrote are different and as such, the two questions you asked above are not relevant based on my interpretation which I’ve just described. I don’t think Macdonald’s description of events followed in complete chronological order and his written thoughts bounced around a bit. Also, let’s please avoid subsequent discussion on the October news reports about him sending survey maps to those overseas because I think I can show pretty easily that those reports didn’t understand what was being shared back and forth, a discussion on which holes were in fact Ideal, as well as CBM receiving topos and related drawings from his friends of some of those famous holes.
Finally, I know you asked some additional questions related to the value of the property which I’d simply answer this way. The developer clearly thought having Macdonald’s National golf course near his development would be a boon to his real estate which is why he went to the additional expense of building the Shinnecock Inn and providing CBM “latitude” over several months to determine the final boundaries of his purchase. However, somewhat ironically, it never worked, very little was ever sold and perhaps the entire failed financial fate of the Real Estate company was writ when they rejected CBM’s initial offer near the Shinnecock Canal. For however adjacent or proximate the development came to Sebonac Neck, it evidently wasn’t close enough for the vast majority of club members to ever purchase lots.
I hope that helps explain my position. Thanks.
-
Patrick,
So, the sun is a problem in March, but the course is closed.
NO, for two reasons.
1 The topography
2 Nobody plays
I was just providing you with some information that you might find relevant.
Then it's a problem in September too.
No, it's not a problem in September, or October.
Having played 72 holes in one day in October I think I'm reasonably qualified to make that statement.
Is the course closed then too?
No, but, it closes shortly thereafter
As for the topography, I have no interest in playing guessing games with you.
But, you provided that great topo, so I thought that you would understand.
The rising land form on 18 blocks the setting sun.
On # 1, your target fairway is well below the tee, hence you're not looking at the horizon, but, down, to the fairway well below the elevated tee.
If you have something informative to add, please do. If not, don't.
Perhaps, with the above revelations, you'll begin to understand that sometimes you actually have to examine the property in person to understand its function.
-
If the land was little known and had never been surveyed, how did they figure out the contour lines for this 1904 Map:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-22%20at%2012.45.08%20PM_zpsf0n7swli.png)
Someone, other than the seaweed collectors, must have been out on the property.
Is it any coincidence that the land that was purchased almost completely tracks the old path/road leading out to Peconic Bay?
-
My suspicion (admitted conjecture) is that it was easier to get around the parcel than CBM let on. I also suspect that they used horses as it would have been the most expedient way to see the land. They had a lot of ground to cover.
For all we know, CBM got out to the high point above Peconic Bay and envisioned exactly what he ended up building later, that is an out and back routing tracking the road they had just followed, with an idyllic setting away from the main thoroughfares and out of the shadow of Shinnecock.
Sven
-
Sven,
It's a fair question, and I've speculated that perhaps Macdonald meant it had never been surveyed for real estate purposes? Certainly it was never part of the Olmsted/Vaux real estate survey done in 1906.
Or, from a golf perspective, those 10 foot intervals on that map aren't detailed enough for golf construction purposes so perhaps that's what CBM meant?
Also, I think one limiting factor was the need to use the Shinnecock Inn as a clubhouse so if you think about that reality as their starting and ending points it's really not that surprising that they went along that route. The condition of that road was well-described by Darwin, though, so I don't think they went that way because a rutted sand path already existed.
-
Well, those 10 foot intervals probably weren't specific enough for him to use for the plaster model he was going to have built for investor purposes.
As for the starting and ending points, I don't think he ever intended the Inn to be the permanent fix for the clubhouse.
If you were in his shoes, where would you site a clubhouse on that 4 acre by 2 mile stretch, assuming you could eliminate from the discussion all of the logistical issues present at the start of the enterprise?
Sven
-
Oh...I get that Sven and I agree but the reason I call it a routing limitation is because he didn't have that option from the start so his beginning and ending spot was pretty well predetermined. I think even Pat would agree that if he had his choice of any of the land within four hundred fifty acres he probably would have gone up into where Sebonack golf course is today but he didn't have that choice.
-
Maybe, maybe not. Seems like what they ended up with worked out pretty well.
Both he and Behr pretty much say the course routed itself. When you look at the natural progression from the entry point near the Inn, up to the start of the coast line (where he found the Eden and the Cape) and continuing on up the existing road to the bluff, it isn't hard to imagine them having it pretty well figured out in a matter of days.
Its possible they didn't even venture far enough off the beaten path to see the Western portion of the property. Everything they were looking for was right there in front of them.
Sven
-
8) Where are the boundaries of subject "450 acres?" Did i miss that delineation?
The Shinnecock Inn (SI) is certainly close, but I assume that there was some sort of multi-party quid pro quo going on with use of it and to minimize capital investment for the founders. Did the founders and friends or business guests really need such accommodations versus staying with others in Southhampton?.
Edit... Would the founders really have accepted the SI out back within close eyeshot of the type Clubhouse that they ultimately built? Amazing that a controlled fire to take out grass got so out of hand.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/3e3a37e6-95e4-4ece-b999-951e459d424d_zps5loqhok0.png)
-
Jeez Mike, That was an awful long ways to go to not answer my question. Let's try this again . . .
Here is an excerpt from CBM:
. . . So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape.
By CBM's account, which of the following events happened first?
"The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose."
OR
"Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. . . ."
Thanks.
-
Patrick,
The rising land form on 18 blocks the setting sun.
On # 1, your target fairway is well below the tee, hence you're not looking at the horizon, but, down, to the fairway well below the elevated tee.
The topo says the 18th tee is at 10 feet and the highest point beyond the 18th fairway is 40 feet. The sun descends over the rising land form a few minutes before sunset. I've seen you drive the ball. You get more than 30 feet of elevation. So, the sun must be in your eyes a few minutes before sunset and for some time before that. If you want to be silly now and say that it's not in your eyes precisely at sunset ......... ???
The 1st tee is at about 45 feet, the fairway maybe 25 feet lower. Beyond the fairway the highest point is maybe 45 or 50 feet. So standing on the tee you'll have to explain what's blocking the sun at sunrise and for some time after as the sun rises.
Sounds like you've backed yourself into a semantic corner.
-
What we need to find are the letters he sent overseas.
Now that would be a treasure trove.
-
Patrick,
The rising land form on 18 blocks the setting sun.
On # 1, your target fairway is well below the tee, hence you're not looking at the horizon, but, down, to the fairway well below the elevated tee.
The topo says the 18th tee is at 10 feet and the highest point beyond the 18th fairway is 40 feet. The sun descends over the rising land form a few minutes before sunset. I've seen you drive the ball. You get more than 30 feet of elevation. So, the sun must be in your eyes a few minutes before sunset and for some time before that.
If you want to be silly now and say that it's not in your eyes precisely at sunset ......... ???
The 1st tee is at about 45 feet, the fairway maybe 25 feet lower. Beyond the fairway the highest point is maybe 45 or 50 feet. So standing on the tee you'll have to explain what's blocking the sun at sunrise and for some time after as the sun rises.
Bryan,
I find this to be a perfect example of the egregious, arrogant attitude you assume when you hold yourself out to be knowledgeable, to the point of being an expert on a course that you've never played.
You've never played NGLA and I've played it hundreds of times, from sun up till sun down and all the time in between and now you're going to try to tell me and all those moronic enough to listen to you, how the holes play.
Despite the fact that you've never played NGLA, you're going to try to tell us what the conditions are like and how they affect play, and you don't see the absurdity of your claims ? ? ?
Don't you understand how utterly foolish you are ?
Sounds like you've backed yourself into a semantic corner.
I think it's more likely that you've made a fool of yourself.
You're like a professor who's never had sex telling a gigolo what it's like.
I can see that I'm going to have to elevate your moron "status" to a notch above the colossal category.
-
Bryan,
You do realize that sunrise at NGLA occurs prior to 5:30am, don't you ?
And that Sunset is after 8:00pm ?
So tell us again how the sun is in my eyes when I tee off # 1 and # 18
-
Patrick,
You're right. I was wrong. Number 1 and 18 never play into the rising or setting sun for anyone at any time of the golf season at NGLA. I can't understand the nuances of the topography and the angle of the sun and sunrise and sunset times without having played the course.
-
8) So, when is the CBM seance scheduled for?
i assume everyone has seen this CBM solicitation letter from Dec 3, 1906?
from good reading at http://issuu.com/lhasak/docs/ngla_book3
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/c501b085-2590-4af4-acd9-83a2a4906248_zpshljg3a0j.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ca73c4ed-753d-4c01-9e74-4a956aca3d24_zpsc2nrznn9.png)
-
I don't have that letter. Nice!
-
While people are digesting the letter, I thought I'd post some more info on the borders.
NOTE: ALL MAPS BELOW ORIENTED NORTH TO THE RIGHT.
The articles quote CBM as saying that they had two miles at their disposal and about one mile of frontage on Bullshead Bay, and about a quarter mile of frontage on Peconic Bay. The orange line is 2 miles, exactly. The long blue line is exactly 1 mile. The small blue line is a quarter mile.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-2-miles_1.jpg)
Below is my attempt at placing the blueprint borders on an aerial. (The area on the blue print at the northern end is not decipherable, so I used old course maps to estimate the approximate edge of the bluff.) The marked area measures 200 acres.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-Blueprint-Outline.jpg)
Next in yellow are the current property lines of the two golf course parcels from the Suffolk County map. The acreages as measured are 52.3 and 185.3, for a total of 237.6 acres, as measured.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-Current-Border.jpg)
Next is green is my estimate of the land original purchased by CBM. It combines the lines from the parcel map (excluding the 2.4 acre parcel purchased in 1910 or 1911 and used for the pro shop) with the shoreline from the blue print and early map. It measures 205 acres. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-Purchase-Estimate-205.jpg)
Next in blue is another estimate of the land currently used for golfing. It measures 162 acres. About the same as Steve's, but mine excludes the pro shop.)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-GC-162.jpg)
Next one shows the only two areas of any significance that aren't used for golfing. The area near the 9th green was going to be the site of the bath and locker house, and possible the site of a future clubhouse. It measures 14 acres. The low lying area next to the 17th measures about 18 acres.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Poss-Clubhouse-14ac.jpg)
Hope this helps.
-
8) David,
Well done. You may need a 12-step program to be able to put down GE Pro's measuring tools... watch out for KML extractions of coordinates...
In your real estate research, did you happen upon when CBM purchased the 200 acres for Ballyshears, conveniently overlooking NGLA, the Sound and out into the Atlantic?
Were the subject 450 acres available to construct NGLA all contiguous including where Sebonac is now or perhaps did they include the Ballyshears property which would have cost CB another $40,000 or more if purchased later to start building his mansion in 1910??
-
Patrick,
You're right. I was wrong.
Number 1 and 18 never play into the rising or setting sun for anyone at any time of the golf season at NGLA.
I can't understand the nuances of the topography and the angle of the sun and sunrise and sunset times without having played the course.
AGREED
-
Great find Steve. Nice work David.
-
Good to see the original plan as described in the attached Founders Agreement was still in place at that time. ;)
-
*
-
Good to see the original plan as described in the attached Foinders Agreement was still in place at that time. ;)
Mike:
I'd read the 4th paragraph of the letter again. Things had changed.
Sven
-
Sven,
I agree that he was already giving himself wiggle room and that the focus was going to be on the golf course and not a scheme to enrich the investors. But he was also playing it both ways by telling them that the agreement they had previously signed was what was going to take place. He was a smart guy and rather shrewd.
-
Read the 4th paragraph again Mike. The idea will be carried out, but the investment component is outside the spirit of the original idea.
-
Jeez Mike, That was an awful long ways to go to not answer my question. Let's try this again . . .
Here is an excerpt from CBM:
. . . So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape.
By CBM's account, which of the following events happened first?
"The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose."
OR
"Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. . . ."
Thanks.
David,
Respectfully, it's a false choice.
CBM starts a new paragraph to tell us what holes he and Whigham found on their 2 or 3 days on horseback which came prior to the both the company agreeing to sell them land and prior to them staking out the land.
He is not writing in strict chronological order.
-
Sven, we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel. By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location. As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse. And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land. Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.
My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did.
______________________________________
Bryan, this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed. There is no reasonable debate to be had here.
-
Mike,
Here again is a portion of what CBM wrote. Two consecutive sentences:
"Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green."
You seem to be saying that the examples in the second sentence had nothing to do with the description in the first sentence.
- Do you really think that is reasonable reading of the passage?
- Do you really believe that CBM just happened to provide a list of unrelated examples immediately after writing that he had earnestly studied the contours; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind?
I ask because it seems to me that your reading of the passage seems more than a little attenuated, and from my perspective it looks like you are letting your desired result control your interpretation, rather than following the source material.
-
Sven, we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel. By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location. As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse. And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land. Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.
You are dispensing with the information that the source says that the site was for the clubhouse and was not owned and that the developer apparently made its use as a club house a condition of sale.
My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did. Maybe he did, but I'll wait and see. If you want to declare game over, that's fine for you.
The logical conclusion to your argument is that CBM agreed to the site being the clubhouse site and then built the pro shop on it instead - breaching the condition.
______________________________________
Bryan, this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed. There is no reasonable debate to be had here.
I think your use of the word "flawed" is flawed. You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion. Neither approach is flawed. This is not a competition to see who got the right answer first. On most of the things we talk about on here we will never know for sure what the right answer is. There is the "fog of war" - well I think there is the fog of history too.
We have a credible source, with access to club records, saying they didn't own the clubhouse land. I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above. It could also be that the source was correct. You want to draw a conclusion on the balance of probabilities. Where there is factual information, either that the club has, or that we can glean from the deeds, I'd prefer to wait and see before drawing a conclusion. Why the rush to judgement - this happened more than 100 years ago. I can wait for the deed information for more certainty. I don't need to draw a final conclusion today or even tomorrow.
-
David/All,
In the interest of advancing the discussion I recall reading a first hand account by either Macdonald or Whigham where after discovering an Alps hole he/they turned and saw an ideal place for a redan. Can you recall or better yet reproduce that article/account here?
-
Bryan, I just don't think it makes sense to pretend the scales haven't tipped when, as you must realize, they have --I was quite surprised when much of the information in the draft cut against your position. Your demanding "absolute certainty" when it suits you seems to me to be more a rhetorical tool than a real, workable standard.
People are put to death based on a lower evidentiary standard that you are willing to accept in this trivial discussion.
And there is no evidence of a "breach" because there is no evidence that CBM ever accepted the condition.
You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion.
I don't think this is quite accurate on at least three accounts.
- First, so far as I am concerned when it comes to this material there is no such thing as a "final conclusion." All conclusions are subject to revision if better information comes out. Such is the nature of historical analysis.
- Second, you aren't waiting. You have stated that you are going to stick with the version in the draft until it is proven false with absolute certainty. This isn't exactly waiting for definitive information.
- Third, you aren't consistent with your application of the standard.
-
I do think it would be greatly helpful if someone could locate;
1) The contract CBM signed on Dec 14, 1906 to secure some 200 acres on Sebonac Neck which has to be in the public record somewhere.
2) The metes and bounds of his spring 1907 purchase.
-
David/All,
In the interest of advancing the discussion I recall reading a first hand account by either Macdonald or Whigham where after discovering an Alps hole he/they turned and saw an ideal place for a redan. Can you recall or better yet reproduce that article/account here?
In Scotland's Gift CBM wrote that they found an excellent setting for the Alps hole (only improved) and then all they had to do was look back and find a perfect redan. Might be elsewhere as well, but I don't have anything handy. What is your point?
-
David,
Thanks, I'm trying to determine the timing of that discovery as relates to our differing interpretations of the passage of the book discussing those founding events.
-
Sven, we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel. By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location. As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse. And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land. Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.
You are dispensing with the information that the source says that the site was for the clubhouse and was not owned and that the developer apparently made its use as a club house a condition of sale.
My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did. Maybe he did, but I'll wait and see. If you want to declare game over, that's fine for you.
The logical conclusion to your argument is that CBM agreed to the site being the clubhouse site and then built the pro shop on it instead - breaching the condition.
If you were familiar with the site, the location of the first tee, 18th green and the topography, you'd know that building the clubhouse there is impossible.
______________________________________
Bryan, this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed. There is no reasonable debate to be had here.
I think your use of the word "flawed" is flawed. You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion. Neither approach is flawed. This is not a competition to see who got the right answer first. On most of the things we talk about on here we will never know for sure what the right answer is. There is the "fog of war" - well I think there is the fog of history too.
We have a credible source, with access to club records, saying they didn't own the clubhouse land.
So you would have us believe that CBM bought the entire shoreline on Peconic Bay, a quarter of a mile, and all the land along Bullhead Bay, a mile, and left a donut hole that he didn't own between the 1st and 18th fairway. Is that your position ?
Let's look at it from the seller's perspective.
What real estate seller would sell 205 acres out of 450 acres and allow the buyer to avoid buying that donut hole which would be totally useless to the seller ?
You'd have to be a financial moron to leave yourself with a useless piece of land, land that was unaccesable because it was surrounded by land owned by CBM.
You'd have NO ACCESS to get to that donut hole.
Your theory is beyond moronic.
It's the Pro-Shop, not the clubhouse.
I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above. It could also be that the source was correct.
Not in a million years.
The seller would never leave himself with a donut hole of land that was inaccessable and unsaleable to anyone other than CBM/NGLA
You want to draw a conclusion on the balance of probabilities. Where there is factual information, either that the club has, or that we can glean from the deeds, I'd prefer to wait and see before drawing a conclusion. Why the rush to judgement - this happened more than 100 years ago. I can wait for the deed information for more certainty. I don't need to draw a final conclusion today or even tomorrow.
Good, since you have so much time on your hands, explain why a seller would sell 205 acres and leave himself with an island of land in the middle of that 205 acres that could never be sold to anyone other than CBM/NGLA ? 2.5 acres with zero access ?
Please feel free to consult with your source when answering that question.
-
Bryan, I just don't think it makes sense to pretend the scales haven't tipped when, as you must realize, they have --I was quite surprised when much of the information in the draft cut against your position. Your demanding "absolute certainty" when it suits you seems to me to be more a rhetorical tool than a real, workable standard.
David, what you going on about? What scales? This is not a court. The draft says they didn't own the land. You don't believe it. I understand. I'll wait for the deeds. Who am I demanding anything of? It's my personal preference to wait until then before drawing my own conclusion. You and Sven may well turn out to be right and perhaps as a result the draft may be amended in the future. That's would be good. Continuing to take shots at me is not helpful.
People are put to death based on a lower evidentiary standard that you are willing to accept in this trivial discussion.
Now you're just being ridiculous.
And there is no evidence of a "breach" because there is no evidence that CBM ever accepted the condition.
How do you know there's no evidence? You don't know what evidence the author had before writing that piece of the draft.
You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion.
I don't think this is quite accurate on at least three accounts.
- First, so far as I am concerned when it comes to this material there is no such thing as a "final conclusion." All conclusions are subject to revision if better information comes out. Such is the nature of historical analysis.
So why are you admonishing me? Strike out "final" if you want to parse words. Your statement sounds reasonable to me. You have drawn your (temporary?) conclusion now and you'll change it later if the deeds prove out to be the clubhouse site. I prefer to wait before making a conclusion. This argumentative nonsense doesn't move us forward at all.
- Second, you aren't waiting. You have stated that you are going to stick with the version in the draft until it is proven false with absolute certainty. This isn't exactly waiting for definitive information.
I respect the credentials of the researcher and their access to information we probably don't have. Why would I not consider their position if there is additional information (in the deeds) that would provide more certainty one way or the other? You coined this "absolute certainty" nonsense some time ago as a put down. Let it go. I am not put down.
- Third, you aren't consistent with your application of the standard.
Nonsense. You're getting totally off track on the subject at hand in criticizing me. Why don't you stick to the topic.
-
Patrick,
Go to bed. Wake up in the morning and reread the previous posts so you know what we're talking about. As a starting point, it NOT what I "would have us believe" NOR is it my "theory". Think about who you are really calling morons here.
-
8)
In regard to the property on the west flank of NGLA, I know there are some old GCA threads on the old CH Sabin Bayberry Land/Electrical Brotherhood property around the time of the Sebonac course development, but their contents and "facts" seem a little loose in parts.
This view is not exactly to scale, but indicative.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/480627f9-d8b7-4c09-92b2-79fabf6baa5a_zpsqleegz4v.png)
I find it interesting that CH, a NGLA Founder, ended up with his own caddy shack and entrance to NGLA at the NW corner, having started acquiring all the NGLA bordering properties in 1910, in building up his 314 acre estate, and prior to building his "cottage."
The view of the SH&PR Co. President (Redfield) is most instructive, as is the longer term "colonization" of South Hampton per David Goddard and how things didn't quite pan out as intended... land blocks remained relatively cheap.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/56f72a3c-ef26-405b-a447-22145b53a3e9_zpssqq3a710.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/efde894e-f1df-4675-9360-f9a20542b906_zpsyhhuubr9.png)
Redfield lost his court battle.. adverse possession prevailed for the Aldriches. The court case may be read at:
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 132 App. Div. 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)
SHINNECOCK HILLS PECONIC BAY REALTY v. ALDRICH
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/02844d8a-0a86-4d3c-a500-e00387c93e0b_zps2izxxxot.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ff5f0ba0-eedd-4516-a54e-9831c0f7b67d_zpsnren6gt7.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ccd7c3d6-8e52-4fa8-aa33-442ddacd4346_zpsaqindlxx.png)
Nice view from Bayberry Land, i believe looking east across Peconic Bay shoreline from sandy bluff, onto the waters in front of NGLA
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/92c36444-b495-4bd6-834c-d379becd9ec2_zps6tc5nes8.png)
-
Bryan, I didn't intend to take shots at you. As we've long debated you and I have slightly different epistemological approaches in these discussions. In my opinion this current issues expose cracks in your approach. That's it.
-
Steve, you asked earlier if anyone knew the boundaries of the 450ac parcel, I don't but I assume it was the bulk of the neck land, hard to know how they treated cold spring inlet in their measures so it is difficult to reconstruct.
-
David,
Do you think HJ Whigham spotted the large hillside for the Alps hole on one of those first 2 or 3 horseback rides around the property?
I think he probably did the very first time they were out there checking out the landforms. It would be very difficult to miss for a layman much less a trained eye. What was it that CBM was quoted as saying, something to the effect of "when Whigham first spotted that Hill he said we'd have a grander Alps than Prestwick!"
Sorry, I'm on my phone but going from memory...I'm sure we can find the exact quote.
-
Steve,
Any idea what Sabin paid for the 319? Acres he purchased in around 1917? Great stuff you're supplying and thanks for advancing the discussion.
-
Patrick,
Go to bed. Wake up in the morning and reread the previous posts so you know what we're talking about. As a starting point, it NOT what I "would have us believe" NOR is it my "theory". Think about who you are really calling morons here.
Bryan,
I know what you're talking about and I know what I'm talking about.
You've put forth the premise that when CBM bought his 205 acres it did NOT include the donut hole where the clubhouse is currently sited.
You've put forth the premise that a real estate company would sell 205 acres to CBM, and leave a useless, inaccessible 2.5 acre parcel in the middle of the land sold to CBM, a parcel that couldn't be accessed by anyone else in the entire world, other than CBM, making that 2.5 acres totally useless and worthless.
You would have us believe that the real estate company selling the land was so stupid that they would give the land to CBM free of charge.
Since CBM/NGLA owned the surrounding land they were the only ones who could gain access to the land, making it useless to the rest of the entire world.
That's beyond moronic and since you're the one presenting that premise, you're a colossal moron.
And you're telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about ?
But, like many other things you've written about NGLA, you failed to think before you typed.
-
Steve, you asked earlier if anyone knew the boundaries of the 450ac parcel, I don't but I assume it was the bulk of the neck land, hard to know how they treated cold spring inlet in their measures so it is difficult to reconstruct.
David,
I believe that parts of the golf course (playing corridors, rough) might have extended onto Sabin's/IEU's property.
If you go to historicaerials.com and focus on the western border of # 5 I think you'll see the difference
-
Patrick,
Those are not my premises. Do you know whose they are?
I wouldn't "have us believe" that.
-
Patrick,
Those are not my premises. Do you know whose they are?
I wouldn't "have us believe" that.
Bryan,
You introduced, promoted and defended the premise, ergo, you own it.
You've also been reluctant to name your source/s and now want to throw them under the bus.
So who are your sources ?
-
David, Do you think HJ Whigham spotted the large hillside for the Alps hole on one of those first 2 or 3 horseback rides around the property?
I think he probably did the very first time they were out there checking out the landforms. It would be very difficult to miss for a layman much less a trained eye. What was it that CBM was quoted as saying, something to the effect of "when Whigham first spotted that Hill he said we'd have a grander Alps than Prestwick!"
Mike, for years you have been working hard to create the impression that the Sebonac property was some remote, worthless, untamed and impenetrable wilderness; swamp-filled, mosquito infested, and so overgrown with dense foliage and bramble that not much of any planning could have even occured before the land was cleared. You've even gone so far as to wonder if it was even possible to roughly stake out the property, as if the brush was so thick and overgrown that they could not even locate the ground beneath them: "I have to ask exactly how that staking would take place on such a property, because almost assuredly it hadn’t been cleared prior…"
Yet now that you are trying to spin things in a different direction you speculate that they "probably" found the Alps Hole on their very first day on the 450 acre property, and that it "It would be very difficult to miss [even] for a layman . . ."
Pretty funny, don't you think?
I don't recall anything in the factual record suggesting that Whigham found the Alps on the first day, and so I am not inclined to join you in your speculation. While frankly I don't think it matters, if something turns up indicating otherwise I'll be glad to consider it. In the meantime might I suggest that these conversations would be a lot more productive if you would let the facts lead you to your conclusions, rather than trying to drag the facts kicking and screaming to serve whatever preconceived point you happen to be trying to make.
-
Steve,
Any idea what Sabin paid for the 319? Acres he purchased in around 1917? Great stuff you're supplying and thanks for advancing the discussion.
make that 314 acres.. and I believe I read that CH began acquiring land in 1910 which stretched out to after completion of the cottage, which wasn't started till 1916 with marriage #2 for CH.
Size Reference: Bayberry Land Brochure, Prepared by Institute for Long Island Archaeology Stony Brook University
Perhaps the land issues should start from the beginning, or lets try the 1653 Division of the Shinnecock Hills area… from when Long Island was ruled (taxed) by Hartford versus Albany…
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/bdce6d71-38e8-4c59-8336-7841abe5ac08_zpsmxrdp77m.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/b3794245-b65d-40ea-9ffd-011d323a961f_zpspilboglq.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/ce09c535-7c2e-4728-ab66-8f34f29d6ddd_zpsbqhdleax.png)
Plate E, Page 65, from “The Woodruffs of New Jersey, By Francis E. Woodruff, of Morristown, N. J. The Grafton Press, Publishers, 70 Fifth Ave., N. Y., ”
Excerpt From: Francis Eben Woodruff. “The Woodruffs of New Jersey who Came from Fordwich, Kent, England, by Way of Lynn, Massachusetts, and Southampton, Long Island.” iBooks.
-
Patrick,
Go back to page #25 and read the posts. The answer to your last question is on that page, and not in a post of mine. I kind of figured your were blustering without being up to date on the background to this question.
-
Bryan,
I'm preserving your post by quoting it.
Please reread your words, in blue type.
Why were you so willing to accept your source's absurd, moronic premise ? ? ?
Sven, we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel. By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location. As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse. And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land. Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.
You are dispensing with the information that the source says that the site was for the clubhouse and was not owned and that the developer apparently made its use as a club house a condition of sale.
My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did. Maybe he did, but I'll wait and see. If you want to declare game over, that's fine for you.
The logical conclusion to your argument is that CBM agreed to the site being the clubhouse site and then built the pro shop on it instead - breaching the condition.
______________________________________
Bryan, this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed. There is no reasonable debate to be had here.
I think your use of the word "flawed" is flawed. You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion. Neither approach is flawed. This is not a competition to see who got the right answer first. On most of the things we talk about on here we will never know for sure what the right answer is. There is the "fog of war" - well I think there is the fog of history too.
We have a credible source, with access to club records, saying they didn't own the clubhouse land. I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above. It could also be that the source was correct. You want to draw a conclusion on the balance of probabilities. Where there is factual information, either that the club has, or that we can glean from the deeds, I'd prefer to wait and see before drawing a conclusion. Why the rush to judgement - this happened more than 100 years ago. I can wait for the deed information for more certainty. I don't need to draw a final conclusion today or even tomorrow.
-
Patrick,
For the record, could you please tell us who the source of this "moronic premise" is. Or, have you still not figured it out. Do we need to spoon feed you.
Also for the record, maybe you didn't comprehend the following from my post. Seems I was sitting firmly on the fence.
I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above. It could also be that the source was correct.
-
In fairness, Bryan, you have also said that you are going with the version in the draft until proven otherwise. So not exactly on the fence.
-
Patrick,
For the record, could you please tell us who the source of this "moronic premise" is. Or, have you still not figured it out. Do we need to spoon feed you.
YES
Also for the record, maybe you didn't comprehend the following from my post. Seems I was sitting firmly on the fence.
No, I'm pretty sure that you had leaned over the fence and accepted the premise that CBM/NGLA did NOT own the clubhouse site through your referencing your unimpeachable source.
I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above. It could also be that the source was correct.
-
David, Do you think HJ Whigham spotted the large hillside for the Alps hole on one of those first 2 or 3 horseback rides around the property?
I think he probably did the very first time they were out there checking out the landforms. It would be very difficult to miss for a layman much less a trained eye. What was it that CBM was quoted as saying, something to the effect of "when Whigham first spotted that Hill he said we'd have a grander Alps than Prestwick!"
Mike, for years you have been working hard to create the impression that the Sebonac property was some remote, worthless, untamed and impenetrable wilderness; swamp-filled, mosquito infested, and so overgrown with dense foliage and bramble that not much of any planning could have even occured before the land was cleared. You've even gone so far as to wonder if it was even possible to roughly stake out the property, as if the brush was so thick and overgrown that they could not even locate the ground beneath them: "I have to ask exactly how that staking would take place on such a property, because almost assuredly it hadn’t been cleared prior…"
Yet now that you are trying to spin things in a different direction you speculate that they "probably" found the Alps Hole on their very first day on the 450 acre property, and that it "It would be very difficult to miss [even] for a layman . . ."
Pretty funny, don't you think?
I don't recall anything in the factual record suggesting that Whigham found the Alps on the first day, and so I am not inclined to join you in your speculation. While frankly I don't think it matters, if something turns up indicating otherwise I'll be glad to consider it. In the meantime might I suggest that these conversations would be a lot more productive if you would let the facts lead you to your conclusions, rather than trying to drag the facts kicking and screaming to serve whatever preconceived point you happen to be trying to make.
David,
Should I take that as "yes"? ;)
-
Bryan,
On page 17 in reply # 409 I asked you to name your "reliable" source, and you refused to do so.
Now, 9 pages and 238 posts later you have the nerve to ask me the moronic questions above ?
I also asked you again, on page 20, post# 491, and you refused to answer.
-
Bryan,
Since you memory seems to be failing, I thought I'd quote one of your previous posts.
You've clearly jumped on the bandwagon of your "very reliable" source.
Here is some more information, from what looks to me like a very reliable source, about the history of the clubhouse at NGLA.
In the summer of 1910, two years after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, Macdonald finally decided that he wanted to build his clubhouse on the site where it sits today, on a hill overlooking Peconic Bay. It appears that in 1910 that he did not own the site on which the clubhouse is sited. The Realty Co offered to sell him the 2.5 acre site where the clubhouse now sits, but only as a site for the clubhouse. After some negotiation he bought the parcel of land and assisted by a committee had the clubhouse built over the summer of 1911 and completed by September. They tried to fund the clubhouse through the issuance of debentures.
The fact that he didn't own the clubhouse site in 1910 throws a wrench in my understanding of what property he did buy in 1906-07.
The above is the "smoking gun" clearly evidencing your position that CBM/NGLA did NOT own the clubhouse site when they bought the 205 acres.
YOU claimed that it was a "fact" that CBM did NOT own the clubhouse site.
Did they buy property with a lot in the middle withheld, or did the property not originally go as far west as the current 18th green and 1st tee?
The above are also YOUR words.
YOU INTRODUCED, PROMOTED AND DEFENDED THIS MORONIC PREMISE.
You were no "fence sitter", YOU were a proactive advocate for this moronic premise and it's about time that you admit that you're guilty of introducing, promoting and defending that moronic premise, instead of denying your role. .
At any rate, it appears certain that this site for the clubhouse is not where he always intended it be.
If it was, I imagine that he would have thought to buy the site as part of the original land deal in 1906.
Only if you're stupid enough to attach any credibility to the moronic premise you introduced from your "very reliable" source, a source you've refused to identify despite being asked 9 pages and 239 posts ago.
Thank goodness for the quote feature !
-
Pat,
I'm really not sure why you're still discussing roads? First, there were no major roadways north of the train tracks that would have impacted CBM's first choice for a site near the Shinnecock Canal.
That's not true.
A Long Island Railroad Map, produced in 1882, clearly shows roads north of the train tracks.
You and others also seem to forget that Shinnecock was founded in 1892 and went to 18 holes in 1895.
If it was so inaccessable, why did the they hold the second U.S. Amateur and the second U.S. Open there in 1896 ?
How do you suppose the members, guests, competitors, officials and spectators traveled to Shinnecock ?
Maidstone, just down the road in Easthampton was founded in 1899.
Trains were not the only means of transportation in the Hamptons in 1907.
"The first automobiles arrived on continuous paved road across Long Island in 1905", several years before CBM purchased the land for NGLA
As regards roads going up into the NGLA property, perhaps you missed what Bernard Darwin wrote, which I'll reproduce again below;
"At first the only access to the clubhouse was over an old, uncared-for, rough, rutted, and sandy road, over which the farmers of the former day had carted seaweed and sedge, when those things were considered valuable. The services of Mr. Seth J. Raynor were again called into requisition and he laid out a beautiful drive, which has been graded and oiled and placed in first class condition and now is ready access to the clubhouse at full speed over one of the best and pleasantest roads in the vicinity. What would those old seaweed haulers say if they should appear some day and see this road and the new, speedy vehicles that are used on it." - as reproduced in "The Evangelist of Golf"
That's nice, but, ignores the fact that trucks/wagons made 20,000 trips to and from NGLA in 1907, of which 10,000 of those trips were made carrying tons of dirt
Here is a "good road" on Long Island at the time, from a photo a took of Bradley Klein's terrific book, "Building Sebonack". I'm not sure if you can read the caption but it says, "Early day car travel in the Hamptons was an adventure on unpaved, rutted roads."
Yes, but, you're editorial comment, that it's a "good road" is misleading and disingenuous.
You don't know what road that is and what the year is. Nor do you know whether it's a bad road"
For all we know, it could be 1892.
Note the narrow wheels on that vehicle
Check out the tire imprints in about six inches of sand.
While you're at it, check out how narrow those tires are.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8775/17833124036_774cdb27ff_b.jpg)
-
Patrick:
So you don't continue down this unnecessary road any further, Bryan's source can be found in the link posted by Steve Lang a number of posts back.
It appears to be an online draft of a new NGLA history book.
Sven
-
Sven,
Yes, and the holes they found based on landforms (and water hazards) were closely grouped, in the sense that the Alps hill and redan plateau are close to each other and once CBM found a site for his Eden green (where he wanted a water carry) he evidently turned and found the idea for the Cape.
I think they were looking for landforms for ideal holes but that's a ways from a full routing, or planning all of the holes in detail, thanks.
NO, it's NOT.
When you consider that he had located the Road Hole, Cape, Eden, Redan, Alps, Sahara and had bought the land adjacent to Bullhead Bay and Peconic Bay, in conjunction with his two clubhouses, and the "other holes" (Bottle, Plateau, Leven), the routing was fixed in concrete.
Tell us how are you going to get to the 2nd tee.
Tell us, how you'll get from the Road Hole Green to the Shinnecock Inn ?
Especially after playing the "Bottle" hole.
Tell us how you'll get to the Eden hole from the Shinnecock Inn ?
The routing was fixed, He studied all 450 acres, selected 205 acres once he found the templates he was looking for, then he staked the land accordingly, and then he bought it and located his holes as he had previously determined.[/color]
-
David,
Perhaps I can help clear up your frustration.
Yes, the proposed development put together by Olmsted and Vaux for the Real Estate company “adjoined” NGLA, but only in the strictest sense of touching a single point along a boundary. However, the vast majority of the land adjoining NGLA was not part of that Real Estate plan.
How little of that proposed development actually touched the course can best be seen in this aerial from Brad Klein’s terrific book, “Building Sebonack”. Here, one can see out across the entire NGLA course, and virtually all of the land bordering the course (on the right in this picture where land for Sebonack Golf Course had been cleared) was available for the Real Estate company to sub-divide for building lots but they chose not to. In the far distance near today’s 9th green and beyond was the planned development as well as the Shinnecock Inn.
Macdonald told us that everyone thought the land was more or less “worthless”. It was worthless for farming, and apparently it was so overgrown and bug-infested that it was considered worthless for housing development, possibly because of the anticipated cost to clear it.
Nice to see you "selectively" extracting information from Brad's terrific book.
But, If you read further, Brad clearly states that the land comprising the Shinnecock Hills was 3,200 acres that was "used for sheep grazing and for the commercial harvesting of salt hay as feed and bedding for cattle. The arid, TREELESS land proved unyielding to farming.. One account of the era described the land as a "succession of disagreeable sand hills.' Those sand hills didn't prove 'disagreeable' when it came to golf terrain in the for of the National Golf Links of America."
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/17239114023_fcd5d47d5b_b.jpg)
Whatever price the Real Estate company wanted to charge Macdonald for his 2.5 acre addition (at least $1,000 an acre they said, and told him they’d gotten offers for more), it sounds like a negotiating ploy. It wasn’t until 1917 that they finally got a buyer (Charles H. Sabin) for the 300 odd acres next door (today's Sebonack GC) that had never been surveyed for housing. I’ve yet to find a purchase price for that transaction but maybe you can because I’ve got a flight to catch this afternoon.
The Sabin property was assessed at a value of $ 160,000 in 1919.
At 300 acres, that would be $ 533 an acre.
In 1949 the Electrical Union, Local # 3 purchased the land for $ 131,250
-
Sven,
Agreed in concept, but think coming up with a finalized routing and all hole conceptions was more complicated and time-consuming than we know based on how overgrown the property was before it was cleared sometime in 1907. The article I posted yesterday from mid-August of that year makes it sound like it was still a bit of a safari at that point. Thanks.
Mike,
How can you dispute that CBM told us that he found the holes he wanted, staked the property line for the property and bought that land.
The routing was done before he staked the land.
As Sven stated, even a moron could connect the dots, you just continue to ignore the critical dots.
-
Mike,
The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre). CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse. So he paid the asking price.
Once again you're caught introducing and promoting that moronic premise.
He already had his land for the clubhouse.
He needed the land for the pro-shop
-
Mike,
The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre). CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse. So he paid the asking price.
Bryan:
You have yet to prove that the 2.5 acres was for the clubhouse. It may have been for the proshop, but that is a different story.
Sven,
Bryan has conveniently recanted his advocacy regarding the 2.5 acres for the clubhouse, stating that he was just sitting on the fence.
Too bad that the quote feature proves him wrong.............. again.
-
Indeed I haven't "proved" it. I was reporting what I saw from a credible source. It could be wrong, like so many historical accounts and interpretations we see. Or, it could be right.
I think the source is credible so I'll stick with it until something comes along that disproves it.
Bryan,
I thought you stated that you were neutral, sitting on the fence.
Your above post to Sven says otherwise.
Don't you remember what you write ?
The deeds would be proof one way or the other.
Mike,
The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre). CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse. So he paid the asking price.
Bryan:
You have yet to prove that the 2.5 acres was for the clubhouse. It may have been for the proshop, but that is a different story.
Sven
[/quote]
[/quote]
-
Pat,
You're rambunctious tonight! ;) seriously, I hope you're feeling better soon.
While I have your attention, wouldn't you agree that finding the big dune/hill for their ideal Alps hole would have been something trained experts like Macdonald and Whigham obviously spotted on their first tour or two around the Sebonac Neck property on horseback? In fact, wouldn't they be hopeless morons to miss such an obvious landform?
-
Pat,
You're rambunctious tonight! ;) seriously, I hope you're feeling better soon.
Antibiotics are wonderful medicines.
While I have your attention, wouldn't you agree that finding the big dune/hill for their ideal Alps hole would have been something trained experts like Macdonald and Whigham obviously spotted on their first tour or two around the Sebonac Neck property on horseback?
Mike,
Where I think you and others are not grasping this issue is that you seem to be confining the horseback exercise solely to the NGLA property and not the entire 450 acres..
When you consider the Sebonack property it alters the equation significantly.
There are hills at Sebonack that are more pronounced than at NGLA
When you consider that CBM was trying to replicate not just six or eight great holes, but, 18 great holes, you have to consider the following.
Why wouldn't he choose the upper land at Sebonack, great land for golf, if he didn't have a set plan.
Certainly, he'd be foolish to ignore the bluff overlooking Peconic Bay.
I can't imagine him rejecting any land on the bluff, thereby resulting in an entirely inland golf course.
Consider these template holes
Leven 17
Cape 14
Eden 13
Plateau 11
Bottle 8
Road 7
Short 6
Redan 4
Alps 3
Sahara 2
Now there are ten of his templates.
But, we know that the SI was going to be his temporary starting and finishing point, ergo
Shinnecock 10
Long 9
And, since he purchased frontage on Peconic Bay and was going to site his clubhouse there.
Home 18
Valley 1
That's 14 pretty obvious dots to connect.
Put another way, he wouldn't buy land that he wasn't going to put golf holes on.
The configuration of the NGLA site is pretty unique, and when you place those "template" holes, and others that he found so quickly, he had to know where the individual holes were intended to be located when he staked out the property he wanted to buy.
In fact, wouldn't they be hopeless morons to miss such an obvious landform?
Easy to say now, but when you consider the land form at Sebonack, there were alternatives.
I believe that the Alps and REDAN were an early quinella.
-
Patrick,
I agree with almost your entire post.
But the routing limiting factor was his inability to build a clubhouse anywhere he chose from the get-go, and then forced to start and end his dream golf course within a stones throw of the Shinnecock Inn was a restraint to him going well west into the land of where Sebonack Golf Club is today.
And yes, even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC to not see the Long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property. ;)
-
Mike,
I'm not so sure that the clubhouse siting was a negative.
I've listed a number of factors that would lead a prudent person to conclude that he always intended the current site as his clubhouse site with the SI being a temporary convenience by default.
1. He didn't own the land behind the 9th green
2. He had no access to the land behind the 9th green
3. He left a donut gap in his routing between # 1 and # 18.
4. He would not want his clubhouse below & in the shadow of the SHGC clubhouse.
5 The site overlooking Peconic Bay is exponentially better than any site near the 9th green.
Next Bryan and his very credible source will tell us that Mike Pascucci was going to site his clubhouse next to the entrance gate.
Remember, CBM wasn't just designing/building a golf course, he was building a course comprised of 18 of the most ideal golf holes in the world, holes that required specific landforms, specific sites, and he found them all prior to staking the land he wanted to purchase.
Consider this.
If in 1907 you and I were going to build a great golf course on that 450 acres, and we were familiar with the great links courses of the U.K, wouldn't we site as many holes as we could on Peconic Bay ?
And not just one ?
Wouldn't we also try to use Cold Spring Pond and Sebonac Inlet and Bullhead Bay, if we could, rather than go inland ?
But CBM rejected great land for golf in favor of land that would accommodate his predetermined holes.
And that's just another reason that I believe he knew exactly where his ideal or template holes would be located prior to staking the land.
-
David,
Should I take that as "yes"?
Only if you want to continue to misinterpret just about everything you read.
-
In fairness, Bryan, you have also said that you are going with the version in the draft until proven otherwise. So not exactly on the fence.
Fair enough.
But, I'm not sure how the dissection of my evolving position on the draft contributes in any way to assessing the merits of the premise (or whatever we want to call it). On the receiving end it just feels like a personal attack (mostly Patrick and not you), absent any particular relevance to whether the information in the draft is true or not.
-
My posts certainly weren't meant as a personal attack, nonetheless I am sorry they came off that way. The current debate struck me as illustrative of a broader point concerning the our respective approaches to critical analysis, but I haven't done a great job of explaining that point.
To my way of thinking, these discussions are more nuanced than the harsh dichotomy between fact and opinion. Some opinions are more plausible and better supported than others, and it is inaccurate to treat all opinions as equally valid or equally flawed. Strong probability is not the same thing as slight possibility, and it distorts and bogs down the conversation when we act as is if, absent certainty, the two are of equal validity.
In other words, when almost all the evidence is on one side of the fence, then fence sitting seems only marginally more reasonable than being on the wrong side altogether.
-
Bryan,
On page 17 in reply # 409 I asked you to name your "reliable" source, and you refused to do so.
Now, 9 pages and 238 posts later you have the nerve to ask me the moronic questions above ?
I also asked you again, on page 20, post# 491, and you refused to answer.
Can you not understand why I did not want to name the source?
Others found the same source subsequently and posted it. I thought contacting the source would be appropriate before posting it. I still think that was the right thing to do for me. Others, apparently didn't feel that way and posted it. That's up to them.
Sven has spelled out for you who the source is in the last few posts. I honestly do hope that you know who the source is and who you are calling out for a "moronic premise". Maybe you should man up and contact them yourself and tell them directly that they are morons.
As for your serial pillorying of me in the last page, it's troubling to me to see your continued efforts to suppress introduction and discussion of relevant information. I thought this site was about discussion of golf course architecture. I didn't think this site was about proving your debating prowess, but maybe I got that wrong too.
I'm not sure how the dissection of my evolving position on the draft contributes in any way to assessing the merits of the premise (or whatever we want to call it). It's just a personal attack.
And, for the last time, I think the premise came from a credible source with access to more information than I have, and although I can see the merits of thinking it was the pro shop site, personally I can wait to see the deeds before I conclude that that's what the site was. I'm happy to see I'm so important to you that you need to spend so much time and green ink trying to knock me down. It's not very productive though, in the context of this site.
-
My posts certainly weren't meant as a personal attack, nonetheless I am sorry they came off that way. The current debate struck me as illustrative of a broader point concerning the our respective approaches to critical analysis, but I haven't done a great job of explaining that point.
To my way of thinking, these discussions are more nuanced than the harsh dichotomy between fact and opinion. Some opinions are more plausible and better supported than others, and it is inaccurate to treat all opinions as equally valid or equally flawed. Strong probability is not the same thing as slight possibility, and it distorts and bogs down the conversation when we act as is if, absent certainty, the two are of equal validity.
In other words, when almost all the evidence is on one side of the fence, then fence sitting seems only marginally more reasonable than being on the wrong side altogether.
Maybe I haven't been clear either. I respect your analytic skills and research abilities. I was actually surprised that you hadn't found this source before I did. I hope it won't disappear as a result of some of the moronic chatter around here.
Sure, some opinions are more plausible and better supported than others. I doubt that many of us would promote a slight possibility over a strong probability. But then one person's strong probability is not necessarily another person's.
My perception of one area where we disagree, is whether it is necessary to draw a conclusion at some point in time and subsequently try to get others to agree to our position. I don't feel a need to win over others to my way of thinking. Others around here do seem to feel that need to win. As a case in point, your multi-year debates with Mike are mostly, in my opinion about trying to prove to the other that your opinion has a stronger probability than theirs, and vice versa. You both seem to need a concession - a win. After these many years, it isn't going to happen. Seems to me that there is room for two or more opinions. We'll never know for certain in most cases.
Another area we appear to disagree on is the need to draw a strong probability conclusion when there is a a deterministic answer possible. The 2.5 acre clubhouse site is that kind. I'll wait for the deeds to provide a deterministic answer, because the answer is out there. You and others would rather draw the strong probability conclusion now. There's room for those two approaches. It is sad when these kind of debates get rancorous; there really is no need.
-
I figured your source was a draft, but I was guessing a different author and I certainly did not expect it to be publicly accessible. Such is the beauty and the burden of the evergrowing internet database. All research is immediately out of date.
I don't expect to win Mike over and I am long past caring what he thinks about this stuff. But at the same time I think a strong and vocal counterpoint is necessary to counterbalance unsound research and analysis. And in my opinion, most of my disputes with Mike are of the strong probability vs. slight possibility variety.
As for the deed, sure it would confirm that cbm purchased the clubhouse land with the rest, but to my mind that isn't even seriously in dispute. The deterministic answer is in cbm's 1912 letter, and an understanding of where the clubhouse sits on the land as compared to the pro shop.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-
Pat,
Bryann's source also published the Mountain Ridge history book. Maybe you know them:
http://issuu.com/lhasak/docs/mrcc_12_final
Hasak, Inc.
The link to the NGLA book no longer exists.
-
David,
I wish you would answer a very simple question. Having been out there multiple times myself I'm sure a veteran of NGLA like Patrick can explain to you how even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC types to not see the long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property. ;)
It would be like visiting a site in Ardmore and not seeing the Quarry.
-
I wonder if Walter Travis is talking about navigating the overgrown property with Macdonald and Whigham before they secured the property or after? We know CBM mentioned that he'd had Travis out there prior and we know Travis was named to the Committee to select the holes and determine the distances after the land was procured. We also know he was still named as being there late summer 1908 but that's a discussion for another day. More relevant here is how he describes the state of the site.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8889/18083428685_bdf6329b32_b.jpg)
-
I think showing the whole origin story as told by CBM in "Scotland's Gift" may show pretty clearly that he wasn't writing in chronological order, otherwise he would have discovered and laid out his Alps and redan holes sometime after the clubhouse burned down and I think anyone who has been on the property would have a difficult time missing the towering Alps hill on their first visit looking for landforms.
It might be illustrative and clarifying for each of us to attempt to put these statements in chronological order as we think they happened. I'm certainly willing and I think all of the rest of the contemporaneous events and evidence supports my timeline but understand others may interpret things differently and I'm open to revising my opinion as new evidence surfaces.
In that regard, I'm most appreciative to folks here like Steve and Bryan who keep digging for new information and who seem very fair-minded in their approach to the materials. Thanks, guys.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7737/17460980634_0309866f55_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8805/18083795185_8c52ba10c9_b.jpg)
-
HJ Whigham certainly seemed to think in March of 1906 (sorry, I couldn't find the attribution of this old article except month and year) that the plan for including building lots for the Founders was still in play, calling it "ingenious'.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
-
Indeed, two months later after returning from abroad Macdonald was still convinced of the need to buy 200 acres to carry out his planned Agreement with the Founders.
Five months later he secured 200 acres. Coincidence? I really don't think so.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted.
That's why Patrick's contention that he knew all the holes he would be locating prior to routing them doesn't make sense. In fact, CBM tells us that most of the holes at NGLA are hybrids of various things he liked as suggested by the natural ground of the site, and not imposed on top of the site based on some pre-determined attempt at direct copies of entire holes from abroad.
-
Speaking of the hole selection process, this article by Walter Travis that appeared in April 1907 (in Outing Magazine, I believe) gives some indication about both the process as well as how far along they were at that point.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm195/mik4cj/NGLATravis190704_zpscglxzufj.jpg~original)
-
David,
I wish you would answer a very simple question. Having been out there multiple times myself I'm sure a veteran of NGLA like Patrick can explain to you how even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC to not see the long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property. ;)
It would be like visiting a site in Ardmore and not seeing the Quarry.
Even the simplest of questions need a question. This is just more self-serving conjecture on your part and it stands in direct contradiction to all your other self-serving proclamations about how they couldn't have possibly done anything go until the site was cleared.
If you are asking me to tell you what cbm and hjw discussed on their first ride, my answer is I don't know because they didn't say. And I'm not about to put your words in their mouths.
As for this latest conjecture, why not look at all of of cbm's description instead of pretending it is just the alps? Would the cape and Eden have been obvious to a layman on horseback too? And if they were so obvious, then why not the giant safari ridge and natural bunker, which actually is part of the fomation which is the highest point on ngla's parcel? Or how about higher features on sebonac? For that matter why wasn't the giant punch bowl indentation just as obvious? Or the dune for the leven? Or many of the other prominent physical features defining the holes here? Or how about the rest of his description? Would it have been obvious from horseback on a single ride that the course would a mile of frontage along Bullshead Bay, or a quarter of a mile on the Peconic, or that the course would be two miles long?
For your conjecture to mean what you seem to think it means, everything cbm described in December would have had to have been obvious, while everything he didn't mention would have needed to be hopelessly impenetrable. That makes no sense.
Unfortunately, what you are attempting here is typical. You are trying to base your new position on some stretched and twisted conjecture based on a tenuous reading of an out.of context snippet that has little to do wth anything.
-
Mike, are you really going to clog the thread but going back and re-posting all these documents yet again? You're not saying anything new here. Reread the Stillman letter. It goes a long way to resolving the issue of whether or not CBM was including a large real estate component. Let's move on.
-
Or if you won't move on (and you won't), then let's step back and consider how we got here in the first place:
For years you have been insisting that, in December 1906, CBM told his founders (and the rest of the world) that the specific NGLA parcel would have a large real estate component consisting of building lots for all of the founders. This was the very foundation for your self-described "bombshell" thread from years ago (name subsequently changed), and literally hundreds of pages of posts on this issue across many different threads.
You were wrong. CBM did not tell the founders that the NGLA parcel would have a large real estate component consisting of building lots for all of the founders.
Yet, rather than reconsider your position, you just ignore this fact and keep spinning the same old preconception! You seem unwilling or incapable of letting the facts shape your position. Your position remains no matter the facts!
-
David,
Do you see the irony of ending one post with "Let's move on." and starting the very next post with "Let's step back". : ::)
Ooops, I guess you did; I see you've now edited the first sentence of the last post.
-
Yep. I did and do see the irony. But we all know Mike isn't moving on.
-
Bryan,
On page 17 in reply # 409 I asked you to name your "reliable" source, and you refused to do so.
Now, 9 pages and 238 posts later you have the nerve to ask me the moronic questions above ?
I also asked you again, on page 20, post# 491, and you refused to answer.
Can you not understand why I did not want to name the source?
Yes and No.
And, there's always IM's and email.
Others found the same source subsequently and posted it. I thought contacting the source would be appropriate before posting it. I still think that was the right thing to do for me. Others, apparently didn't feel that way and posted it. That's up to them.
Sven has spelled out for you who the source is in the last few posts. I honestly do hope that you know who the source is and who you are calling out for a "moronic premise". Maybe you should man up and contact them yourself and tell them directly that they are morons.
I'm extremely fond of your source, but, you bought into the source's premise due to the source's credibility rather than on the merits of the premise.
You, your source and everyone was looking at this issue from the perspective of the buyer, not the seller.
Your source is a terrific fellow, but, his premise is beyond moronic.
Here's what the premise requires you to believe.
It requires you to believe that a for profit real estate company (party A) would sell a 205 acre block of land to a buyer, (party B), and within the midst of that 205 acre parcel, the seller would retain 2.5 acre donut hole of land that was inaccessable to Party A.
2.5 acres that was surrounded by the Buyer, (Party B's) land.
2.5 acres that couldn't be accessed by any other prospective buyer (party C)
2.5 acres that immediately became useless to the seller (party A) and any prospective buyer (party C)
Thus, this for profit real estate firm just gave away 2.5 acres and/or rendered useless, 2.5 acres that only Party B could access.
That 2.5 acres immediately became useless to everyone except Party B.
Party B could sit on that land and never buy it and party A would have to write down their loss.
Does that sound like something a "for profit" real estate company would do ?
Do you really think that a real estate company would retain a donut hole of 2.5 acres without any access to the seller (party A) or any prospective Buyer (party C)
However, maybe there's another wrinkle to this premise.
Doubtful, but, perhaps, CBM bought the 205 acres and obtained an option for the 2.5 acres since he didn't yet have the money to build his clubhouse.
But, then, that would mean that CBM always intended that site to be the site for his clubhouse ;D
I like that premise. ;D
As for your serial pillorying of me in the last page, it's troubling to me to see your continued efforts to suppress introduction and discussion of relevant information. I thought this site was about discussion of golf course architecture. I didn't think this site was about proving your debating prowess, but maybe I got that wrong too.
Bryan, if you giveth, you have to taketh.
You've done your share of "pillorying and I've taken it like a man without complaining.
You like busting my chops and I like busting your chops.
There's no malice intended, I was just pointing out your contradictory positions when you claimed neutrality.
You were sucked in by your source's credentials, not the merits of the premise.
However, you've had a tendency to present yourself as an expert on golf courses that you've never seen
I'm not sure how the dissection of my evolving position on the draft contributes in any way to assessing the merits of the premise (or whatever we want to call it). It's just a personal attack.
Not at all.
You recently claimed that you were sitting on the fence on this issue.
Yet, your words, written earlier, contradicted that statement.
You weren't on the fence, you were firmly in your source's camp.
You can't, conveniently, have it both ways depending upon how the debate is evolving.
And, for the last time, I think the premise came from a credible source with access to more information than I have, and although I can see the merits of thinking it was the pro shop site, personally I can wait to see the deeds before I conclude that that's what the site was. I'm happy to see I'm so important to you that you need to spend so much time and green ink trying to knock me down. It's not very productive though, in the context of this site.
Byran, when you're guilty of not thinking the issue through, and champion your source's premise, you deserve to be challenged.
You claimed that it was a fact that the 2.5 acres was were the current clubhouse sits.
WHY ?
For one simple reason, you're looking for anything that would disprove my premise that the current clubhouse site was always the intended site for the clubhouse.
That's your motive for clinging to your source's premise without thinking it through.
Like Mike, you draw a conclusion and then try to find info to back it up and the 2.5 acres was the perfect info if it wasn't the wrong 2.5 acres.
-
David,
I wish you would answer a very simple question. Having been out there multiple times myself I'm sure a veteran of NGLA like Patrick can explain to you how even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC types to not see the long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property. ;)
Mike,
I disagree.
Again, you're confining CBM's search to within the borders of NGLA when the entire 450 acres was at his disposal.
If anything, the high area behind the 10th green at Sebonack would be the land form towering above their heads.
It would be like visiting a site in Ardmore and not seeing the Quarry.
Have you played or walked Sebonack ?
-
One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted.
Mike,
That's NOT TRUE.
One can count on 10 to 14 template holes at NGLA
Where are you getting your information that "only a small handful of templates would be attempted"
That's why Patrick's contention that he knew all the holes he would be locating prior to routing them doesn't make sense.
Of course it does.
And, you agreed with my post # 659 in your post # 660.
He had 14 of the 18 holes pre-determined, and filling in the gaps was child's play.
In fact, CBM tells us that most of the holes at NGLA are hybrids of various things he liked as suggested by the natural ground of the site, and not imposed on top of the site based on some pre-determined attempt at direct copies of entire holes from abroad.
Not true.
CBM states that he first placed the holes that were "almost unanimously considered the finest of their character in Great Britain"
Then he states that "All of the other holes at National are more or less composite, but some are absolutely original.
Again Mike, ONLY SOME are original, which is the exact opposite of your claim.
Reread Chapter IX of "Scotland's Gift"
This was a man on a mission, a mission to introduce the great golf holes in the UK and combinations of the great golf holes in the UK, at NGLA.
He didn't select that 205 out of 450 acres randomly, he studied the land, found where his ideal holes would be best located, then staked the property lines that would contain his ideal holes.
To suggest that he randomly staked 205 acres of land with the HOPE of somehow finding the golf holes that fit his mold and his plan is....... well, beyond moronic.
-
Indeed, two months later after returning from abroad Macdonald was still convinced of the need to buy 200 acres to carry out his planned Agreement with the Founders.
Five months later he secured 200 acres. Coincidence? I really don't think so.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted.
That's why Patrick's contention that he knew all the holes he would be locating prior to routing them doesn't make sense. In fact, CBM tells us that most of the holes at NGLA are hybrids of various things he liked as suggested by the natural ground of the site, and not imposed on top of the site based on some pre-determined attempt at direct copies of entire holes from abroad.
Mike:
"One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted."
No, the article does not say this. What it says is that only a handful of his templates will be exact copies, but that he still has plans to use the templates that exemplify the principles he is seeking to capture, of which he has more than 18 different holes in mind. If you don't understand this distinction, you don't understand CBM's templates.
What he is saying is that he is going to see which templates work for the ground they use, hence why the Biarritz, specifically mentioned in this article, was never used.
Sven
-
Also, we covered the 200 acre thought already. By the time he made an offer on the 120 acre parcel, the RE idea had been abandoned.
You think this is because the 120 acres were going to be in close proximity to the already mapped and plotted parcels, thus providing his founders with the ability to buy land near the course.
But that was not the original deal. The original deal was that each founder would get land from the club, not the ability to purchase a much more expensive piece of property nearby. That deal had gone by the wayside.
And when he upsized the land required for the course (a course that fits pretty tightly on the 205 acres purchased), he was not contemplating using some of that land to honor the terms of the 1904 agreement. He was looking to use the 205 acres to build a golf course.
Sven
-
Also, we covered the 200 acre thought already. By the time he made an offer on the 120 acre parcel, the RE idea had been abandoned.
You think this is because the 120 acres were going to be in close proximity to the already mapped and plotted parcels, thus providing his founders with the ability to buy land near the course.
But that was not the original deal. The original deal was that each founder would get land from the club, not the ability to purchase a much more expensive piece of property nearby. That deal had gone by the wayside.
And when he upsized the land required for the course (a course that fits pretty tightly on the 205 acres purchased), he was not contemplating using some of that land to honor the terms of the 1904 agreement. He was looking to use the 205 acres to build a golf course.
Sven
Sven,
Is this documented somewhere? Or is it your opinion (along with David) that the concept had been eliminated?
Missed the last couple days but skimmed through and didn't see anything documenting this.
-
Jim:
I was referring to the fact it has previously been discussed.
Sven
-
Got it...
-
Jim, See the Stillman letter above.
It is documented that in CBM's Dec. 1906 letter to the founders he did NOT mention anything about a large housing component at ngla. And is documented in the same letter that CBM disavowed the "investment" component of the 1904 letter.
Keep in mind that the reason we have been doing this for so many years is that Mike and others have repeatly insisted that in Dec 1906, CBM announced to his members that NGLA would contain a large subdivision with building lots for the founders. It is documented that this didn't happen. Mike was wrong.
So now that we know that the major assumption driving all of this was erroneous, are we really going to keep the theory going?
-
8) Keying on the naming of the CH Sabin estate flanking NGLA and his Bayberry Land cottage, the works of William Merritt Chase who lived in Southampton and painted turn of the 20th century views there might help folks understand that the land may not have been extremely chocked with bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) bushes and other sand loving woody species. I would think if the girls could get around on foot, CB & JW on horseback had quite a run of the land!
Figures 7, 8, & 9 From : http://www.antiquesandfineart.com/articles/article.cfm?request=952
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/a06523d8-a5a9-4303-bf39-69c8173324ec_zpscl9lm3io.png)
Fig 7. William Merritt Chase (1849–1916),
Idle Hours, ca. 1894.
Oil on canvas, 25 x 35 inches.
Signed "Wm. M. Chase" at lower left.
Courtesy Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth, Texas (1982.1).
The painting depicts Chase's wife and two of his daughters, Alice Dieudonnée and Koto Robertine, on the beach of Shinnecock Bay. The other woman holding a parasol is possibly Chase's sister-in-law, Virginia Gerson. Idle Hours has a long exhibition history. It was once owned by the art patron Samuel T. Shaw, who lent it to the Interstate and West Indian Exposition in Charleston, South Carolina (1901), where it was awarded a gold medal.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/5f93ee67-ae32-4063-a59f-625179186034_zpsuwt4pvom.png)
Fig. 8: William Merritt Chase (1849–1916), Gathering Autumn Flowers, ca. 1894.
Oil on canvas, 21 x 38 inches.
Signed “Wm. M. Chase” at lower right. Courtesy collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon.
Seated lower right in the painting is Chase’s daughter, Dorothy Bremond, holding a bouquet of flowers, with her sister Alice Dieudonnée behind and farther to the left, kneeling to pick flowers, while their sister Koto Robertine stands in the far background.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/54fc739c-f761-4b4b-98b3-2c9374f8cd39_zpsfmvpcufp.png)
Fig. 9 William Merritt Chase (1849–1916),
The Big Bayberry Bush, ca. 1895.
Oil on canvas, 25-1/2 x 33-1/8 inches.
Signed "Wm. M. Chase" at lower left. Courtesy the Parrish Art Museum, Southampton, Long Island, New York, Littlejohn Collection.
This scene of Chase's three eldest daughters playing among the bayberry bushes also depicts the Chase summer home, designed by Stanford White, in the background. When it was shown in the Kansas City Art Club Exhibition of 1901, it was singled out as "noteworthy for its admirable atmospheric effect, and for the deft description of summer sunshine."
-
Yep. I did and do see the irony. But we all know Mike isn't moving on.
Philosophical thought of the day. My wife keeps telling me we only have control over what we ourselves do. We can't control what other people do. So, stop worrying about Mike being stuck on this point. You can move on if you want to.
-
So could you, yet here we are.
-
Amen.
-
Patrick,
I brought the information forward 12 pages ago. David and Sven were on it right away. You were a latecomer to the party with nothing new to add. Now 12 pages later you are still doing your rottweiler on a bone routine. You've pulverized the bone. Let the bone dust go.
-
David,
In the spirit of moving on from the clubhouse/proshop episode,
Jim, See the Stillman letter above.
It is documented that in CBM's Dec. 1906 letter to the founders he did NOT mention anything about a large housing component at ngla. And is documented in the same letter that CBM disavowed the "investment" component of the 1904 letter.
.............................
As usual I read it a bit different from you.
The way I read the "investment" paragraph is that CBM was tying to reassure Stillman that his $1000 investment in the Ideal golf course was safe because at the very least they had the land which was a tangible asset. I read it as saying, don't worry, if this thing goes down the tube we can sell the land and get some return on our investment. But, we're really in this for the golf course, not as a land investment.
I don't see where you see a disavowal.
Wasn't the original idea of a 1.5 acre lot just a possible enticement for the Founders. I don't recall it being described as an "investment".
The Stillman letter also says that the original agreement was attached. It doesn't say that the original agreement was modified to remove the 1.5 acre plot for each Founder does it?
-
Bryan, I trust that at least you agree that the CBM's letter did NOT mention anything about a large housing component at NGLA. This in and of itself is very significant, since this had long been the primary claim of the NGLA-as-real-estate-scheme crowd.
In the spirit of moving on from the clubhouse/proshop episode,
You'll see soon that we'll soon be moving right back to it, at least tangentially . . .
The way I read the "investment" paragraph is that CBM was tying to reassure Stillman that his $1000 investment in the Ideal golf course was safe because at the very least they had the land which was a tangible asset. I read it as saying, don't worry, if this thing goes down the tube we can sell the land and get some return on our investment. But, we're really in this for the golf course, not as a land investment.
Exactly. This was not going to be a land investment. It was not going to be a scheme where the each founder will get a building lot in fee simple which will be valued at more than his original contribution. This is the disavowal.
I don't see where you see a disavowal.
Wasn't the original idea of a 1.5 acre lot just a possible enticement for the Founders. I don't recall it being described as an "investment".
The Stillman letter also says that the original agreement was attached. It doesn't say that the original agreement was modified to remove the 1.5 acre plot for each Founder does it?
While CBM stated that the original idea would be carried out, he also "emphasize[d] that any investment component was "outside the spirit of which the idea originated."
-
Bryan and All,
Remember the restriction that the developer tried to put on the 2.5 acre parcel, requiring CBM to build a clubhouse? My take was (and is) that the developer really just didn't want Macdonald to do anything with the land unrelated to a golf course. And this seems to have been the case.
According to an article in the Walker Cup program by Chris Millard (also the author of Bryan's "source") the developer intended to limit Macdonald's use of the entire 205 acre parcel to a golf course and only a golf course. From Millard's article, quoting developer's annual report to the shareholders:
"'If the property fails to be used as a golf course within the next fifty years, it shall revert to us upon payment of the purchase price with interest. If they build later a clubhouse to not cost less than $20,000, this is to be excerpted from the reversion together with 5 acres around it.'"
It looks as if the developer had retained (or planned on retaining) a possibility of reverter (or perhaps a right of entry,) so that if CBM had tried to use the land for anything other than a golf course, the golf course would have reverted back to the development company, after said payment and interest.
In other words, according to the developer in the quote above, there could be no residential real estate development or any other development except for a golf course.
Can't wait to see how Mike tries to spin this one.
-
David,
Interesting reading isn't it.
For discussion purposes, could you not read that condition as trying to protect the seller from Macdonald's grand plans for an ideal golf course failing and CBM selling the land to a competitive developer for houses or factories or an amusement park or some other deleterious (to the selling Realty Co) use. I can see how you can infer that it would prevent the building of cottages (small variety). I'm not sure why you and Mike are so doggedly trying to pin down when the 1.5 acre inducement was no longer operative. But, please continue the battle if it pleases you two.
To digress to other interesting tidbits in that section, in the preceding paragraph, the November 1906 option and June 11, 1907 finalization of the deal for slightly more than 205 acres is presented. The same 205 acres widely reported at the time and even subsequently by CBM himself. Why does the Stillman letter of December 1906, written by CBM, say he has purchased 200 acres. Apart from the fact that it was only an option and not a purchase, could he have optioned 200 acres and then bought 205 acres. What changed between December and June? Where were those extra 5 acres?
The Realty Co tells it's shareholders the good news that they made a profit on land that had no foreseeable use (and therefore presumably value). For those arguing against the land being worthless, it seems even the Realty Co thought it pretty much worthless in the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile it's a good deal for CBM because he can "cherry pick" his 205 acres from the 450 acres. Unfortunately there's no added clarity as to when CBM finished his cherry picking. Since it's reported that there was a $10,000 deposit in November and payment of the balance in June 1907, I suppose it's possible the cherry picking could have gone past June. The Realty Co had no foreseeable use for the land, so there was presumably no pressure to nail CBM down.
More interesting from an acreage point of view, is that a couple of paragraphs later there is the news that immediately after closing the deal CBM bought another 2.5 acres to "protect ourselves" on the western edge. Presumably this is different from the 2.464 acres that CBM bought in 2010 for the clubhouse/pro shop (depending on your opinion).
I'm sure this all makes logical sense, but it will take some digesting (and maybe some deeds).
-
Wow, I'm glad I went hiking yesterday. ::)
-
David,
Interesting reading isn't it.
For discussion purposes, could you not read that condition as trying to protect the seller from Macdonald's grand plans for an ideal golf course failing and CBM selling the land to a competitive developer for houses or factories or an amusement park or some other deleterious (to the selling Realty Co) use. I can see how you can infer that it would prevent the building of cottages (small variety). I'm not sure why you and Mike are so doggedly trying to pin down when the 1.5 acre inducement was no longer operative. But, please continue the battle if it pleases you two.
To digress to other interesting tidbits in that section, in the preceding paragraph, the November 1906 option and June 11, 1907 finalization of the deal for slightly more than 205 acres is presented. The same 205 acres widely reported at the time and even subsequently by CBM himself. Why does the Stillman letter of December 1906, written by CBM, say he has purchased 200 acres. Apart from the fact that it was only an option and not a purchase, could he have optioned 200 acres and then bought 205 acres. What changed between December and June? Where were those extra 5 acres?
The Realty Co tells it's shareholders the good news that they made a profit on land that had no foreseeable use (and therefore presumably value). For those arguing against the land being worthless, it seems even the Realty Co thought it pretty much worthless in the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile it's a good deal for CBM because he can "cherry pick" his 205 acres from the 450 acres. Unfortunately there's no added clarity as to when CBM finished his cherry picking. Since it's reported that there was a $10,000 deposit in November and payment of the balance in June 1907, I suppose it's possible the cherry picking could have gone past June. The Realty Co had no foreseeable use for the land, so there was presumably no pressure to nail CBM down.
More interesting from an acreage point of view, is that a couple of paragraphs later there is the news that immediately after closing the deal CBM bought another 2.5 acres to "protect ourselves" on the western edge. Presumably this is different from the 2.464 acres that CBM bought in 2010 for the clubhouse/pro shop (depending on your opinion).
I'm sure this all makes logical sense, but it will take some digesting (and maybe some deeds).
Bryan,
Precisely. Thanks for keeping it real and saving me the time of responding.
-
Patrick,
I brought the information forward 12 pages ago. David and Sven were on it right away. You were a latecomer to the party with nothing new to add. Now 12 pages later you are still doing your rottweiler on a bone routine. You've pulverized the bone. Let the bone dust go.
Bryan,
You continually interjected contrarian theories, theories based upon a lack of first hand experience and exposure to the property at NGLA with the sole purpose of trying to dispel my premise that the clubhouse was always intended to be in its current site.
First it was "near", then it was the rising and setting sun, then it was that CBM/NGLA didn't own the land where the clubhouse is sited.
In each and very case you stridently defended your position until you were proven wrong and accepted that you were proven wrong.
Hence my bulldog like tenacity in bringing you to task is solely to make you think before you introduce another counter argument.
I think they call that accountability.
You can't take a position that's seriously flawed and not expect to get flak for it.
You can't hold yourself out to be well versed, to the point of being an expert regarding a course you've never set foot on and not expect to get flak for it.
Especially given your motives😜
So, carry on, but rather than try to prove me wrong with hair brained theories, come up with something that we can both agree is fact based.
Hope that helps.
-
Mike:
"One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted."
No, the article does not say this. What it says is that only a handful of his templates will be exact copies, but that he still has plans to use the templates that exemplify the principles he is seeking to capture, of which he has more than 18 different holes in mind. If you don't understand this distinction, you don't understand CBM's templates.
What he is saying is that he is going to see which templates work for the ground they use, hence why the Biarritz, specifically mentioned in this article, was never used.
Sven
Sven,
As you know, the original idea for CBM's "Ideal Course" was to have eighteen holes created as direct copies of great holes abroad.
By 1906 this had morphed (for the better) into what CBM presented in this article, where a handful of holes (depending on the landforms available on site) would be attempted direct copies while others would use the "Principles" of great holes, rather than exact copies of those holes, and again very site and landform specific.
I'm not sure I get where you're disagreeing with me exactly? It sounds very much that we are saying the same thing to me..
-
Also, we covered the 200 acre thought already. By the time he made an offer on the 120 acre parcel, the RE idea had been abandoned.
You think this is because the 120 acres were going to be in close proximity to the already mapped and plotted parcels, thus providing his founders with the ability to buy land near the course.
But that was not the original deal. The original deal was that each founder would get land from the club, not the ability to purchase a much more expensive piece of property nearby. That deal had gone by the wayside.
And when he upsized the land required for the course (a course that fits pretty tightly on the 205 acres purchased), he was not contemplating using some of that land to honor the terms of the 1904 agreement. He was looking to use the 205 acres to build a golf course.
Sven
Sven,
I would respectfully disagree.
You've seen the topo maps of the likely area CBM would have chosen for his first option.
Besides intended real estate usage by the developer what other factors do you think would require only 120 acres for his golf course on the first site only to turn around and require 70 % more land on the second if only for golf? The topographies are rather similar with Jeff Brauer having weighed in saying he actually thought the second site more conducive in terms of natural features, less water fromtage.
-
Wow, I'm glad I went hiking yesterday. I missed all the fog and smoke, much of it green, being thrown up here to hide the obvious.
The 1906 "Stillman Letter" that went out to the Founders had attached the original Agreement which spelled out the land usage and included the real estate plan.
The 1906 "Stillman Letter" stated very clearly that the original plan would be carried out.
I appreciate Sven's position but don't agree for reasons I've spelled out in detail previously. As far as the others arguing that the real estate plan was already dead, consider that Patrick is now arguing that trained eyes like CBM and Whigham wouldn't have seen the Alps hill on 2 to 3 horseback rides around the property. And yes, Patrick, I've seen Sebonack and played it and it's on great land but CBM was restricted by having to use the Shinnecock Inn as his starting and ending points. The rest is just you arguing to argue as is normal so I don't have time to wade through that. Similarly, David would argue with me if I said CBM was a great architect so I'll similarly limit my responses there, as well.
David won't even answer a direct question like "Do you think CBM and/or Whigham would have seen the Alps on one of their first two or three rides around the property looking at landforms for their ideal holes?" because he knows that answering affirmatively, which is the obviously correct answer, throws his oft-repeated interpretation of the timeline in "Scotland's Gift" out on its ear.
For those following at home, CBM claimed that the Alps Hill at NGLA is 15 feet higher than the one at Prestwick. I'll share actual dimensions later today.
Similarly, I've also shown that CBM's statements in "Scotland's Gift" are not typed in some form of chronological timeline, but instead he skips at various places down other non-contiguous avenues that are not in chronological order as someone recounting events over 20 years after the fsct is wont to do. Unless you believe he'd be laying out his Alps hole after building his clubhouse after the Shinneock Inn burned to the ground! ;)
I do think that in the end, CBM was really focused on the golf course. Did he sense by December 1906 that he may have to abandon the housing idea, or that the parcel really wasn't conducive to those plans? Maybe. Was his mention in the letter about this not being an "investment" his attempt to cover his bases from a business standpoint if anything differed from the original Agreement to the "as-built"? Possibly.
But it wasn't because he already had the golf course routed and then fit the boundaries of his purchase to those lines. In December of 1906 he had studied the land with Whigham and others for the types of landforms and soils they needed for their ideal course.
In December 1906 they had already found landforms for the Alps, the redan, an Eden, and a Cape from their rides around the property. Things looked encouraging enough that they secured 200 acres that contained those landforms per the original agreement and got to work, much as Max Behr described. And, as Behr stated, at the end there was excess land that was available for other purposes. In 1912 CBM said much the same when he addressed the question of "Surplus Land" in his letter to the Founders.
Anything else here that's been proposed as alternatives is lacking hard evidence and instead we're being asked to use our best guesses based on very biased argumentative, specious alternatives that are being presented here as most likely scenarios. They don't hold up.
-
Mike, quit spinning for a second and read my last post to Bryan.
According to the developer, the land had to be used for a golf course. So it could not be subdivided into building lots. There was no real estate component.
As for the rest I did answer your question. The answer is that I dont know what, if anything, they determined on the first day riding the property.. Unlike you I won't pretend to know things I couldn't possibly know just to try and score rhetorical points.
_________________________________
Bryan,
Of course the restriction was to protect the developer.
I dont get your basis for presuming in an addtional 2.5 acre purchase which would have brought the total to 210 (not 207.5 as it says in the 1912 letter.)
The land wasn't worthless to the developer once CBM determined to build his ideal links on the property. At that point the developer compared it then to 5th Avenue.
-
David,
Was the native file used for the overlay presented from way back on Reply #66 come from the larger plat map pasted in below, (i believe from Olmsted & Vaux's project #03094)?
I note that the general NGLA and SHGC boundaries are vertically labelled in the NE corner of the drawing. Looks like the SH&PB Realty company's sales plans/objectives were quite extensive. Have you ever seen a plat from the "Neck" area?
Nigel,
Here is an overlay I did back when Mike was arguing that the course was supposed to be a few miles to the west.
The location of the Shinnecock Inn is marked on the overlay.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-Overlay-1907crop.jpg?t=1299873957)
Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co plat map.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/fd9bf67f-1dc2-4abb-8cea-cb0de038fc88_zpsf9xovxq8.png)
And an interesting quote from the SH&PB R Co's Redfield, who was what I'd call a political animal; no wonder he called CB & the Founders "co-religionists."
EFFICIENCY means keen self-criticism. It means to go out into the shop and find nothing there that is sacred or fixed. It means that the shop six months ago shall be ancient history. It means the dropping of history, the forgetting of ghosts, the questioning of everything.
WILLIAM C. REDFIELD
, Secretary of Commerce
-
The top of the hill of the Alps is over 50 feet above sea level, tied with the peak of the Sahara Hill as the highest points on the property.
From the fairway that hill rises quickly and towers over 25 feet above the golfer attempting to carry it with an approach.
Isn't it inconceivable that two experts like Macdonald and Whigham, riding "two or three times" around the property looking at landforms for their ideal holes such as the Alps, would have somehow missed it?
Remember that according to Macdonald and Whigham, when they surveyed other experts abroad that the Alps was unanimously termed the finest two shot hole in existence, and certainly one they wanted to reproduce on their Ideal course.
Recall that Macdonald told us that, "When Whigham saw a certain knoll with me he cried out, "We will make a better Alps hole than at Prestwick!""
The moment was that memorable to CBM that Whigham had literally cried out. But perhaps this was in the spring, after they already secured the land.
Nahh...I don't think so.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8768/17934450188_b5ed2147ec_z.jpg)
-
David,
I did see your post re: Redfield's comments and my impression is very much like Bryan's. The developer was trying to protect themselves against CBM doing a bait and switch on them and never building a golf course after all, but instead competing directly with them for real estate.
However, the sub-division of the rest of the Shinnecock Hills planned by Olmsted and Vaux for the developers consisted of 3 to 5 acre lots. I'm not sure how the new Golf Club using whatever land was left over after they built the golf course for at maximum 1.5 acre plots for their Founders would be seen in competition with the developers plans for the thousands of other acres in their possession?
To me, this seems to have been still under discussion. Your quote immediately made me think of the December 16th "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" report that stated:
"While the matter is not yet settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon"
The Eagle was the best source for golf information in and around New York in those days and reported extensively on golf course planning and development. It may be that they knew there were some conditions that the developer had put on Macdonald concerning land usage, or some condition that first required CBM to build a course before any further subdividing of that parcel?
In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever that CBM secured 200 acres because he already had routed the golf course and that's the amount of land that was required. Even by your own measurements, 162 acres if I recall, which also contains the often considerable widths between the holes considered as part of the golf course, over 20% of the land was not used for the golf course but was available for other purposes.
***ADDED*** Also, I think when CBM secured that land in December of 1906 he did still have the original golf/real estate plan in mind or he would have mentioned a revision in his "Stillman Letter" that spelled out a change from that Agreement. Instead, he attached a copy of the original Founder's Agreement and stated that the plan would be carried out.
Something happened after that, I believe. Either the developer objected or CBM decided to go hog wild in his use of landforms across the whole property and houses be damned!
Probably some of all of it, IMHO.
-
I want to make sure I understand this.
- You agree that the developer put the restriction in place in order to keep CBM from competing with the developer in the real estate market.
- Yet you don't see this as impacting your theory about the supposed real estate component.
- Your reasoning is that the developer wouldn't have viewed CBM as a potential competitor because CBM envision 1.5 acre lots, while the developer planned 3-5 acre lots.
Is this really what you are asking us to believe?
-
The top of the hill of the Alps is over 50 feet above sea level, tied with the peak of the Sahara Hill as the highest points on the property.
But, much lower than the high points on the Sebonack property
From the fairway that hill rises quickly and towers over 25 feet above the golfer attempting to carry it with an approach.
Isn't it inconceivable that two experts like Macdonald and Whigham, riding "two or three times" around the property looking at landforms for their ideal holes such as the Alps, would have somehow missed it?
Mike,
Again you're confining their ride to the NGLA property, completely ignoring the dramatic topography on the other 245 or so acres now occupied by Sebonack.
Remember that according to Macdonald and Whigham, when they surveyed other experts abroad that the Alps was unanimously termed the finest two shot hole in existence, and certainly one they wanted to reproduce on their Ideal course.
Remember too that the 3rd at NGLA represents a rather noticeable departure from # 17 at Prestwick.
While the concept is similar, the topography is dramatically different
Recall that Macdonald told us that, "When Whigham saw a certain knoll with me he cried out, "We will make a better Alps hole than at Prestwick!""
The moment was that memorable to CBM that Whigham had literally cried out. But perhaps this was in the spring, after they already secured the land.
Nahh...I don't think so.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8768/17934450188_b5ed2147ec_z.jpg)
-
Patrick,
You'd have to be highly moronic to believe that CBM and Whigham would miss that hill on "2 or 3" trips around the property they were considering on horseback. It's as high in elevation as anything on the Sebonack property and once they were committed to using the Shinnecock Inn as their starting and ending points, along with wanting to use the landforms they spotted already for the Alps and redan and Eden and Cape there was no way to take the course into the wonderful land of Sebonack and make it back to the club before nightfall. ;)
Unless, of course, you think they were both as blind as George Crump who you told us wouldn't be able to see the undulating landforms of Pine Valley from his seat in the Observation Car of the train! ;D
-
I want to make sure I understand this.
- You agree that the developer put the restriction in place in order to keep CBM from competing with the developer in the real estate market.
- Yet you don't see this as impacting your theory about the supposed real estate component.
- Your reasoning is that the developer wouldn't have viewed CBM as a potential competitor because CBM envision 1.5 acre lots, while the developer planned 3-5 acre lots.
Is this really what you are asking us to believe?
David/Bryan,
Do you have a copy of the developer's Board Report you can share here? If not, do you know the date?
Seven or eight months transpired between the time CBM secured the land in late 1906 til the time he signed the final Purchase Agreement in June of 1907.
Perhaps the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" was correct when they noted the matter was not yet settled, pending further negotiations?
Thanks.
-
Patrick,
You'd have to be highly moronic to believe that CBM and Whigham would miss that hill on "2 or 3" trips around the property they were considering on horseback.
It's as high in elevation as anything on the Sebonack property
Mike, you're dead wrong. It's not nearly has high as the elevations at Sebonack
Neither hill is even close in elevation to the top of the hill behind the 10th green at Sebonack.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's at least a 50 foot difference.
The top of the hill on the Sahara is lower than the practice tee at Sebonack
That's why I asked you if you'd ever played or walked Sebonack.
You're starting to sound like Bryan, making wild claims without first hand experience to support your position.
As David stated, you seem to have drawn your conclusions and are looking, selectively, to find info to support that which you've predetermined.
and once they were committed to using the Shinnecock Inn as their starting and ending points, along with wanting to use the landforms they spotted already for the Alps and redan and Eden and Cape there was no way to take the course into the wonderful land of Sebonack and make it back to the club before nightfall. ;)
Since one of the elevations at Sebonack is the highest point on the entire 450 acres, I would have thought that that might have been their starting point for their viewing and searching. ;D
Unless, of course, you think they were both as blind as George Crump who you told us wouldn't be able to see the undulating landforms of Pine Valley from his seat in the Observation Car of the train! ;D
Mike, again you dismiss the land at Sebonack as if it never existed..
The land now occupied by the 10th, 17th, 11th, 18th, 1st, clubhouse, parking lot, range and cabins was pretty good land for golf.
-
Mike, along with the rest of the newspaper accounts about the supposed real estate component, "not yet settled" is a reference back to the 1904 Agreement, which left it up to the founders to work out the details later.
Are you really going to continue to twist and spin, now that even the developer has told us that there was no real estate component? Because at this point you are twisting in the wind.
-
Steve, Thanks for posting that map.
David,
Was the native file used for the overlay presented from way back on Reply #66 come from the larger plat map pasted in below, (i believe from Olmsted & Vaux's project #03094)?
The overlay was from a simpler version that appeared in newspaper advertisements in April 1907.
-
Mike, along with the rest of the newspaper accounts about the supposed real estate component, "not yet settled" is a reference back to the 1904 Agreement, which left it up to the founders to work out the details later.
Are you really going to continue to twist and spin, now that even the developer has told us that there was no real estate component? Because at this point you are twisting in the wind.
David,
I just read Chris Millard's summary of the events and timetable from the Walker Cup program.
Some interesting tidbits, and I'm pretty sure I might look to be twisting to you but it's really just because you're spinning. ;)
All of the following is consistent with what I've been contending;
* CBM secured the land in late 1906 based on finding the correct landforms for some of their Ideal holes including the Alps
* The majority of holes to be selected to fit onto the land all happened in the spring of 1907 in close consultation with others
* Seth Raynor wasn't hired until later in the process, Millard says it was 1908
* The land had been deemed worthless for building sites by the Development Company
* The maps, drawings, etc. that Macdonald possessed included those he drew and those shared by his other friends both here and abroad
* The land in question was not surveyed for golf purposes prior to securing it
* Roadways to eastern Long Island at the time were "Primitive"
* There was no land "staked out" prior to the agreement to secure land but instead CBM was allowed to "Cherry Pick" whatever of the 450 acres best suited his purposes for golf prior to the actual sale being finalized in June 1907.
On the other hand, I was wrong in my speculation that the offer on the 120 acre site was shortly before CBM offered on Sebonac Neck. Millard says it was four weeks after the land company made their large purchase.
I'm still curious to know the date of the Real Estate company's comments via Mr. Redfield if you have that information.
Overall, not bad, I'd say. If that's spinning I'll take it. ;D
-
Mike, along with the rest of the newspaper accounts about the supposed real estate component, "not yet settled" is a reference back to the 1904 Agreement, which left it up to the founders to work out the details later.
Are you really going to continue to twist and spin, now that even the developer has told us that there was no real estate component? Because at this point you are twisting in the wind.
David,
I just read Chris Millard's summary of the events and timetable from the Walker Cup program.
Not the "Bible" on NGLA.
Some interesting tidbits, and I'm pretty sure I might look to be twisting to you but it's really just because you're spinning. ;)
All of the following is consistent with what I've been contending;
* CBM secured the land in late 1906 based on finding the correct landforms for some of their Ideal holes including the Alps
* The majority of holes to be selected to fit onto the land all happened in the spring of 1907 in close consultation with others
Not true and CBM confirms this isn't true in "Scotland's Gift"
* Seth Raynor wasn't hired until later in the process, Millard says it was 1908
* The land had been deemed worthless for building sites by the Development Company
* The maps, drawings, etc. that Macdonald had included those he drew and those shared by his other friends both here and abroad
* Roadways to eastern Long Island at the time were "Primitive"
Also not true, as of 1905 paved highways extended from New York City to the Eastern tip of LI
* There was no land "staked out" prior to the agreement to secure land but instead CBM was allowed to "Cherry Pick" whatever of the 450 acres best suited his purposes for golf prior to the actual sale being finalized in June 1907.
Not true.
CBM stated that he first selected the land that his holes would fit on and then, subsequently, staked the land.
On the other hand, I was wrong in my speculation that the offer on the 120 acre site was shortly before CBM offered on Sebonac Neck. Millard says it was four weeks after the land company made their large purchase.
I'm still curious to know the date of the Real Estate company's comments via Mr. Redfield if you have that information.
Overall, not bad, I'd say. If that's spinning I'll take it. ;D
-
Mike, along with the rest of the newspaper accounts about the supposed real estate component, "not yet settled" is a reference back to the 1904 Agreement, which left it up to the founders to work out the details later.
Are you really going to continue to twist and spin, now that even the developer has told us that there was no real estate component? Because at this point you are twisting in the wind.
David,
I just read Chris Millard's summary of the events and timetable from the Walker Cup program.
Some interesting tidbits, and I'm pretty sure I might look to be twisting to you but it's really just because you're spinning. ;)
All of the following is consistent with what I've been contending;
* CBM secured the land in late 1906 based on finding the correct landforms for some of their Ideal holes including the Alps
* The majority of holes to be selected to fit onto the land all happened in the spring of 1907 in close consultation with others
* Seth Raynor wasn't hired until later in the process, Millard says it was 1908
* The land had been deemed worthless for building sites by the Development Company
* The maps, drawings, etc. that Macdonald possessed included those he drew and those shared by his other friends both here and abroad
* The land in question was not surveyed for golf purposes prior to securing it
Mike,
That's really disingenuous.
What land in 1906 was surveyed for golf purposes ?
* Roadways to eastern Long Island at the time were "Primitive"
* There was no land "staked out" prior to the agreement to secure land but instead CBM was allowed to "Cherry Pick" whatever of the 450 acres best suited his purposes for golf prior to the actual sale being finalized in June 1907.
On the other hand, I was wrong in my speculation that the offer on the 120 acre site was shortly before CBM offered on Sebonac Neck. Millard says it was four weeks after the land company made their large purchase.
I'm still curious to know the date of the Real Estate company's comments via Mr. Redfield if you have that information.
Overall, not bad, I'd say. If that's spinning I'll take it. ;D
-
Mike,
According to the Suffolk County GIS Viewer topo map, the Alps is on top of a 50 foot high knoll while the very highest point on Sebonack is 90 feet. Although the Alps was to be one of the holes to be "resembled exactly" (now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one) it is not an exact copy as it turned out.
-
Mike, along with the rest of the newspaper accounts about the supposed real estate component, "not yet settled" is a reference back to the 1904 Agreement, which left it up to the founders to work out the details later.
David,
I had forgotten to mention that Macdonald's mention of this not being an "investment" in the 1906 "Stillman Letter" simply mirrors his language from the original agreement below;
While the $1,000 subscription it is
trusted will be made in a spirit of advancing
the sport in this country, and not
as an investment, at the same time it is
proposed to give something for the $1,000.
Assuming that we buy 200 acres, it
would take about 110 acres to lay out the
golf course proper, and five acres for a
clubhouse and accessories. We would
give to each subscriber an acre and a half
of ground in fee simple. This ground in
itself should be worth $500 an acre in the
vicinity of a golf course of this character.
Further than this it is proposed that
each subscriber receive a $1,000 3%
debenture bond. "We would issue this
so as to identify the holder, and make it
a debenture bond so it would not be a
fixed charge. This debenture bond must
be held so long as one is a member of the
Founders, and in case of selling, it can
only be sold to one who would be elected
a member of the Founders.
This is simply a suggestion. The details
can be worked out later.
Even if we assume that those "details" refers to both the golf course/real estate plan, as well as the bond plan, which is surely not a certainty, at no point does Macdonald imply that working out those details means throwing the whole idea in the dumpster, but merely implies a future settling on the particulars of the numbers and how everything would be split.
I would mention that he uses direct, definitive language in his golf course proposal, and the only thing uncertain is his word "proposed" related to the Bond issue.
His inclusion of this Agreement with the 1906 Stillman Letter, his contention that the original plan would be carried out, the fact that all of the newspapers reported the land plan in December 1906 without rebuttal from either CBM or the Development company means to me that the matter had indeed not been settled at that point.
-
Mike,
According to the Suffolk County GIS Viewer topo map, the Alps is on top of a 50 foot high knoll while the very highest point on Sebonack is 90 feet. Although the Alps was to be one of the holes to be "resembled exactly" (now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one) it is not an exact copy as it turned out.
Bryan,
You (and Patrick) are correct. My reading of the topo map this morning was in error. Thanks for pointing that out.
Would you agree that it's the highest point on the land CBM chose, along with the Sahara hill?
-
Mike:
"One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted."
No, the article does not say this. What it says is that only a handful of his templates will be exact copies, but that he still has plans to use the templates that exemplify the principles he is seeking to capture, of which he has more than 18 different holes in mind. If you don't understand this distinction, you don't understand CBM's templates.
What he is saying is that he is going to see which templates work for the ground they use, hence why the Biarritz, specifically mentioned in this article, was never used.
Sven
Sven,
As you know, the original idea for CBM's "Ideal Course" was to have eighteen holes created as direct copies of great holes abroad.
By 1906 this had morphed (for the better) into what CBM presented in this article, where a handful of holes (depending on the landforms available on site) would be attempted direct copies while others would use the "Principles" of great holes, rather than exact copies of those holes, and again very site and landform specific.
I'm not sure I get where you're disagreeing with me exactly? It sounds very much that we are saying the same thing to me..
Mike:
Reread what I quoted from your post.
If you meant what I said, you did not write it that way. He was not planning on building a course with only a "small handful of template holes."
Sven
-
Sven,
Yes, I should have been more precise. I should have said only a small handful of holes would be "direct copies", which I used interchangeably with "templates". Thanks.
-
Also, we covered the 200 acre thought already. By the time he made an offer on the 120 acre parcel, the RE idea had been abandoned.
You think this is because the 120 acres were going to be in close proximity to the already mapped and plotted parcels, thus providing his founders with the ability to buy land near the course.
But that was not the original deal. The original deal was that each founder would get land from the club, not the ability to purchase a much more expensive piece of property nearby. That deal had gone by the wayside.
And when he upsized the land required for the course (a course that fits pretty tightly on the 205 acres purchased), he was not contemplating using some of that land to honor the terms of the 1904 agreement. He was looking to use the 205 acres to build a golf course.
Sven
Sven,
I would respectfully disagree.
You've seen the topo maps of the likely area CBM would have chosen for his first option.
Besides intended real estate usage by the developer what other factors do you think would require only 120 acres for his golf course on the first site only to turn around and require 70 % more land on the second if only for golf? The topographies are rather similar with Jeff Brauer having weighed in saying he actually thought the second site more conducive in terms of natural features, less water fromtage.
Mike:
The better question is why did end up with a course that fits pretty tightly within the acreage that was purchased?
When you figure that out (or go back and reread the posts from last week that addressed this), you'll have the answer to your own question.
Sven
-
Mike:
The better question is why did end up with a course that fits pretty tightly within the acreage that was purchased?
When you figure that out (or go back and reread the posts from last week that addressed this), you'll have the answer to your own question.
Sven
Sven,
Because he had 200 acres to work with and something changed between December 1906 and June 1907 that hasn't yet been identified on this thread is my opinion.
Perhaps the developer did put the kibosh on any building lots prior to closing sale with Macdonald in June 1907?
Perhaps CBM underestimated what he needed once he started identifying the holes to be selected and their yardages?
Perhaps CBM made a number of his holes quite wider than the 50 or less yards he originally thought was ideal?
Even with all of that over 20% of CBM's purchase wasn't used for golf and that number doesn't include large gaps between the holes such as between 5 and 14 that both Max Behr and Macdonald told us could be used for other purposes.
Least likely to me would be that either CBM suddenly thought he needed 200 acres for his golf course when a year prior he thought it required 120, and even more remote would be that Macdonald never planned to provide building lots in the first place and only did it as a ruse to attract investors.
***ADDED*** Sven, please also see the language in the original agreement about the Founders money not being an "investment" in my reply to David above. The reiteration of that information in the 1906 Stillman Letter had nothing to do with a sudden change to the proposed housing sites.
-
....................
_________________________________
Bryan,
Of course the restriction was to protect the developer.
I dont get your basis for presuming in an addtional 2.5 acre purchase which would have brought the total to 210 (not 207.5 as it says in the 1912 letter.)
.......................
I'll try to be clearer.
In the Stillman letter from December 1906 CBM says he bought 200 acres.
The Walker Cup piece (and many other reports, including CBM) say CBM bought 205 acres.
Why are they different?
Is one or the other in error or was there a change in the purchase between December and June?
The Walker Cup piece says CBM bought 2.5 acres at the western end immediately after the June 1907 closing.
Where was it and what was it for?
The club history draft says that CBM bought 2.464 acres for the clubhouse in 1910.
So, by then did they own 205 acres or 210 acres?
I take it that none of us know at this time, but it should be interesting to pursue.
-
Patrick,
For years you've been maintaining that Macdonald and Whigham routed the golf course in their first day or two onsite.
Now you claim that they might not have even spotted the Alps hill during this first 2 or 3 trips on horseback CBM mentioned.
Which is it?
-
Mike:
The better question is why did end up with a course that fits pretty tightly within the acreage that was purchased?
When you figure that out (or go back and reread the posts from last week that addressed this), you'll have the answer to your own question.
Sven
Sven,
Because he had 200 acres to work with and something changed between December 1906 and June 1907 that hasn't yet been identified on this thread is my opinion.
Perhaps the developer did put the kibosh on any building lots prior to closing sale with Macdonald in June 1907?
Perhaps CBM underestimated what he needed once he started identifying the holes to be selected and their yardages?
Perhaps CBM made a number of his holes quite wider than the 50 or less yards he originally thought was ideal?
Even with all of that over 20% of CBM's purchase wasn't used for golf and that number doesn't include large gaps between the holes such as between 5 and 14 that both Max Behr and Macdonald told us could be used for other purposes.
Least likely to me would be that either CBM suddenly thought he needed 200 acres for his golf course when a year prior he thought it required 120, and even more remote would be that Macdonald never planned to provide building lots in the first place and only did it as a ruse to attract investors.
Or perhaps in the Fall of 1906 when he figured out the general routing from the Shinnecock Inn, past the locations of the Cape, Eden, Alps, Redan, etc. all the way along the one mile plus of water frontage to Peconic Bay, he had a very good idea that the course was going to need approximately 200 acres to fit the various "template" holes he envisioned using and any additional original holes that fit on the land he had examined.
His 120 acre number was based on his thoughts prior to having determined his list of "template" holes, and prior to his trip overseas. That is what changed.
Sven
-
....................
_________________________________
Bryan,
Of course the restriction was to protect the developer.
I dont get your basis for presuming in an addtional 2.5 acre purchase which would have brought the total to 210 (not 207.5 as it says in the 1912 letter.)
.......................
I'll try to be clearer.
In the Stillman letter from December 1906 CBM says he bought 200 acres.
The Walker Cup piece (and many other reports, including CBM) say CBM bought 205 acres.
Why are they different?
Is one or the other in error or was there a change in the purchase between December and June?
The Walker Cup piece says CBM bought 2.5 acres at the western end immediately after the June 1907 closing.
Where was it and what was it for?
The club history draft says that CBM bought 2.464 acres for the clubhouse in 1910.
So, by then did they own 205 acres or 210 acres?
I take it that none of us know at this time, but it should be interesting to pursue.
Bryan:
CBM transferred 205 acres to NGLA in 1910. The 2.5 acre purchase came after that date, not immediately after the land was first procured.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Deed%20-%20Brooklyn%20Daily%20Eagle%20Aug.%201%201910_zps3avrmplh.png)
-Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Aug. 1910)
There is a difference between 200 and 205 because the exact boundaries had not yet been figured out in Dec. 1905, as they had not yet done the survey to subdivide out the land for the golf course from the 450 or so that was available to them, although they already had a very good idea where the golf course was going to be (good enough to know they needed around 200 acres).
Sven
-
The June 1907 date for finalizing the purchase has been thrown around quite a bit in the last couple of pages.
I don't think the date is determinate of anything relating to our conversation, other than that was the time when every thing was in place to make the transfer official.
Anyone who has bought a house knows these things don't happen overnight. It is no surprise to me that it took 5 or 6 months to finalize the purchase of property that had not already been surveyed (for RE purposes), a parcel that was being carved out of an existing section of land, and that did not follow obvious plat lines.
Sven
-
Patrick,
For years you've been maintaining that Macdonald and Whigham routed the golf course in their first day or two onsite.
Correct
Now you claim that they might not have even spotted the Alps hill during this first 2 or 3 trips on horseback CBM mentioned.
That's NOT what I stated.
I NEVER stated that they might not have spotted the Alps hill during their visits.
What I stated was that the current Alps hill isn't the highest hill on the 450 acre property, which is what you stated.
If you're going to quote me, please quote me accurately, and not as you'd like ;D ;D.
Which is it?
See above
-
Sven,
In your post to Mike, did you mean the fall of 1906, not 1907?
In the next post, are you saying that the Walker Cup piece is in error about the 2.5 acres immediately after the June 1907 closing?
To me the December to June was the 5 months where they were going to do the detail planning, plus whatever land procurement hoops they had to jump through.
-
Mike,
I think a mistake that you and others make is that you assume that the Shinnecock Inn was the primary influence for the routing and hole selection. That the design of the holes and the routing were primarily a function of the location of the SI.
When you consider the holes CBM had "discovered, prior to staking out the land, the SI became a secondary convenience and nothing more.
Forgetting about the fire for a second.
What designer would design and route a course to a specific point when he had no outside access to that point ?
-
A nice photo from the Walker Cup 1922.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7772/17941468368_0b20df17cc_o.jpg)
-
Sven,
In your post to Mike, did you mean the fall of 1906, not 1907?
In the next post, are you saying that the Walker Cup piece is in error about the 2.5 acres immediately after the June 1907 closing?
To me the December to June was the 5 months where they were going to do the detail planning, plus whatever land procurement hoops they had to jump through.
Bryan,
Would this be a good time to remind everyone about the design evolution of Merion and how the bunkers/features would be fine tuned over time, with the benefit of playing experience.
CBM like Donald Ross at PH#2, spent the balance of his active life fine tuning NGLA.
Why would it surprise you to know that CBM began fine tuning NGLA from the moment he acquired the property ?
-
Sven,
In your post to Mike, did you mean the fall of 1906, not 1907?
In the next post, are you saying that the Walker Cup piece is in error about the 2.5 acres immediately after the June 1907 closing?
To me the December to June was the 5 months where they were going to do the detail planning, plus whatever land procurement hoops they had to jump through.
Bryan:
Definitely meant 1906. Fixed, and thanks for pointing it out.
I do think the Walker Cup piece was in error, but I'll hold off on a definitive response until we see the actual records. That 205 acre number in 1910 is a solid benchmark.
Sven
-
Pat,
Are you saying that the starting and ending holes just happened to be located near the Shinnecock Inn due to pure coincidence or because that was the building CBM has to use for his clubhouse?
-
Bryan,
Would this be a good time to remind everyone about the design evolution of Merion and how the bunkers/features would be fine tuned over time, with the benefit of playing experience.
CBM like Donald Ross at PH#2, spent the balance of his active life fine tuning NGLA.
Why would it surprise you to know that CBM began fine tuning NGLA from the moment he acquired the property ? [/color]
Patrick,
Except that's not what happened during that time period in the first half of 1907. Macdonald himself was quoted in December after signing the agreement to secure land that the next several months would be devoted to selecting the holes and determining the distances.
He wasn't bunkering the place and even when the routing was finally published in August of 1907 it was pointed out that the bunkering hadn't been done, except where necessary to reproduce a template hole. Other articles later after the course opened in 1910 mentioned the fine tuning process and need to observe play to appropriately bunker the holes.
-
Or perhaps in the Fall of 1906 when he figured out the general routing from the Shinnecock Inn, past the locations of the Cape, Eden, Alps, Redan, etc. all the way along the one mile plus of water frontage to Peconic Bay, he had a very good idea that the course was going to need approximately 200 acres to fit the various "template" holes he envisioned using and any additional original holes that fit on the land he had examined.
His 120 acre number was based on his thoughts prior to having determined his list of "template" holes, and prior to his trip overseas. That is what changed.
Sven
Sven,
Perhaps but why didn't he tell us, or better yet, why didn't he tell the Founders that his thinking and thus their agreement had changed?
Why wouldn't he have added an addendum or revision to his original Founders Agreement mentioning his sudden change of heart? Instead, he sent the Original Agreement to them again in Dec 1906 saying the original plan would be executed? Worse yet, he seems to have sent it to the Press, who faithfully reported on it in various NYC newspapers. Why wouldn't he have corrected them?
As far as his trip overseas, I'm not sure what he would have seen that he hadn't seen prior that would lead him to increase the size of his Ideal golf course by 70%. Could you elaborate on that statement? Thanks!
-
Mike,
You've gone off on so in so many different directions this morning, that I won't even bother to address most of it except to say that I disagree.
I will address few points, though.
1. You asked for the date of Redfield's statement. In Colonizing Southampton, Goddard recounted that Redfield gloated about the sale in his "first report to the stockholders at the end of 1906." This cuts directly against your wishful thinking about how the condition must have arisen at some point later date.
2. Your claim that the Dec. 1906 Stillman letter "simply mirrored" the 1904 Agreement is mistaken. For one reason, the Stillman letter made no mention of any sort of housing scheme whatsoever! For another, the Stillman letter clarified that any misperceptions created by the original agreement by stating that any sort of investment scheme (outside of getting a good price for the land) was outside the spirit of the original agreement. For another the Stillman letter suggests that this point needed more emphasis than was placed in the original agreement.
3. Your take away from the Walker Cup program is so skewed and misleading that it is not worth addressing.
But all of this is beside the point! According to Redfield there was NO REAL ESTATE COMPONENT! So why are you still doing this?
-
Mike:
You don't know that CBM sent the agreement to the press. You've constantly speculated that he used the press for publicity. You and I disagree on this point, for a number of reasons. Foremost, I don't think he gave a crap what the general public thought. His concerns were with the folks he saw face to face, the founders, the guys he wanted to sign up for his endeavor. The press was more interested in him than he was in them.
You are neglecting to take into account what we know about the man. He didn't work in half measures, he didn't sweat the BS. He was building the first "ideal" course in the U.S., and if you wanted to get a ticket on his train then pony up the $1000.
As for finalizing his thoughts on the ideal, perhaps it wasn't what he saw, it was the act of putting it down on paper, of mapping out his final set of templates, that led him closer to the 200 acre number. Perhaps it was actually seeing the land that he would end up buying. Perhaps it was a combination of the two, seeing how the holes he wanted to build would work on that land, what areas were usable for those purposes, and what areas weren't.
When you buy 200+ acres, and the golf course you build on those 200+ acres fits within the customized boundaries of that area with only a modicum of extra land (much of it in the interior of the course), you're not thinking about extra land for 1.5 acre plots of land for a bunch of millionaires whose only unbuffered property lines are on the Upper East Side.
Sven
-
Pat,
Are you saying that the starting and ending holes just happened to be located near the Shinnecock Inn due to pure coincidence
Absolutely.
Why would you have a starting and finishing point to a location that no one could access ?
Please answer that specific question.
or because that was the building CBM has to use for his clubhouse?
The SI served as a temporary clubhouse out of pure coincidence and convenience.
-
Mike,
You've gone off on so in so many different directions this morning, that I won't even bother to address most of it except to say that I disagree.
I will address few points, though.
1. You asked for the date of Redfield's statement. In Colonizing Southampton, Goddard recounted that Redfield gloated about the sale in his "first report to the stockholders at the end of 1906." This cuts directly against your wishful thinking about how the condition must have arisen at some point later date.
2. Your claim that the Dec. 1906 Stillman letter "simply mirrored" the 1904 Agreement is mistaken. For one reason, the Stillman letter made no mention of any sort of housing scheme whatsoever! For another, the Stillman letter clarified that any misperceptions created by the original agreement by stating that any sort of investment scheme (outside of getting a good price for the land) was outside the spirit of the original agreement. For another the Stillman letter suggests that this point needed more emphasis than was placed in the original agreement.
But all of this is beside the point! According to Redfield there was NO REAL ESTATE COMPONENT! So why are you still doing this?
David,
Then why include the Original Agreement in his letter to Founders in Dec 1906 if it was already null and void, trumped by the Real Estate Developer's dictate as to how the land they purchased could be used? There would be no reason to mention it again in the Stillman Letter as the Original Agreement spelling it out was already attached!
Redfield certainly seems to have dictated how the specific land for a clubhouse could be utilized, but I don't see any mention of Real Estate Component that Macdonald proposed in what was quoted, do you? You can speculate that this implied how the remainder of the property could be utilized, but that's not what's quoted, is it? Without further details on that agreement we don't know for sure.
Thanks for pointing out the Redfield 1906 mention from Goddard's book. I agree that is likely the source of the quotes in the Walker Cup article.
Let me ask you this, though.
According to your calculations Macdonald utilized 162 acres for his golf course, which includes the sometimes sizable gaps between ingoing and outcoming holes such as exists between 5 and 14. Let's say that number was 150, or somewhat less.
Is it your belief that even if CBM had a spare 50 or more acres available not used for the golf course that he'd lock himself into an agreement with a Real Estate Developer where the developer had final say in how Macdonald could use any additional property not used for golf, now and forever-more?
-
Missing a couple days makes it tough to find a place to elbow in...and there really are several different disagreements going on at the same time...it's pretty incredible. Fortunately though, they have all stayed on this thread as opposed to each argument having its own...
David - Your quote of the developer via Millard:
"'If the property fails to be used as a golf course within the next fifty years, it shall revert to us upon payment of the purchase price with interest. If they build later a clubhouse to not cost less than $20,000, this is to be excerpted from the reversion together with 5 acres around it.'"
This doesn't at all say CBM cannot give 90 acres in 1.5 acre lots to his Founding members if there is a golf course there. I'm not even sure how you can read it to say that. That conversation has been couched in terms like "large housing component" and "cottage versus cabin" when neither were ever put on the table by CBM.
-
Bryan,
Would this be a good time to remind everyone about the design evolution of Merion and how the bunkers/features would be fine tuned over time, with the benefit of playing experience.
CBM like Donald Ross at PH#2, spent the balance of his active life fine tuning NGLA.
Why would it surprise you to know that CBM began fine tuning NGLA from the moment he acquired the property ? [/color]
Patrick,
Except that's not what happened during that time period in the first half of 1907. Macdonald himself was quoted in December after signing the agreement to secure land that the next several months would be devoted to selecting the holes and determining the distances.
"Distances", Mike, "distances"
CBM clearly stated that he located the holes he wanted, staked the property accordingly and subsequently, bought what he staked.
Reread Chapter X, he's pretty clear on the sequence of events.
I know that you can't admit or adhere to that sequence because of what it does to your Merion defense, but, CBM was crystal clear on the process, he studied the land in earnest, located the holes, staked the property, and bought the property.
He didn't buy a slice of land randomly with the hope of being able to site his templates, he had done that work prior to staking the land.
He wasn't bunkering the place and even when the routing was finally published in August of 1907 it was pointed out that the bunkering hadn't been done, except where necessary to reproduce a template hole. Other articles later after the course opened in 1910 mentioned the fine tuning process and need to observe play to appropriately bunker the holes.
Mike, they were playing the course in 1909.
And, CBM stated that they built the classic holes right at the get go. The Eden, Cape, Alps, Sahara, Redan, Road hole and others, like the Short, Leven, Bottle.
How do you think he planned to get from the Redan green to the Short tee ?
The "hog back" was one of his templates.
-
I'll try to be clearer.
In the Stillman letter from December 1906 CBM says he bought 200 acres.
The Walker Cup piece (and many other reports, including CBM) say CBM bought 205 acres.
Why are they different?
Is one or the other in error or was there a change in the purchase between December and June?
I don't know for sure, but the reason might be suggested by the blueprint. The lines on the blueprint along SHGC and the Western border (in other words, the lines excluding the water frontages) are not quite identical to the lines on the parcel map. The difference between the two seems to be about five acres. So perhaps the draftsman of the blueprint didn't get the original dimensions quite correct, or perhaps CBM and HJW had the line slightly altered when they figured out that the alps and Sahara didn't quite fit as they thought the holes would fit.
Another possibility is that they were working with the same lines on all but the borders bound by water, but that the developer or the final survey was slightly more aggressive in what constituted land and what constituted sea.
The Walker Cup piece says CBM bought 2.5 acres at the western end immediately after the June 1907 closing.
Where was it and what was it for?
It was the land described by CBM in the 1912 letter. The Walker Cup article quotes Macdonald as saying that they purchased the land "to protect ourselves." The quote comes from the description in the 1912 letter.
The club history draft says that CBM bought 2.464 acres for the clubhouse in 1910.
Perhaps the author didn't mean "immediately" the way you are reading it.
So, by then did they own 205 acres or 210 acres?
According to CBM, by then they owned 207.5 Acres. The original 205, plus the 2.5 as described in the 1912 letter.
-
Mike -
Go back and reread the Dec. 16, 1906 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article (which sites the earlier Nov. 1 article). Note the last paragraph.
They were already talking about a clubhouse that could host players for the weekend, and where they could take their meals.
If this was supposed to be a cottage community course, why would they be talking about the need for a clubhouse suitable for hosting the members during their visits?
Sven
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-26%20at%2011.55.38%20AM_zpswoislfjy.png)
-
Mike:
You don't know that CBM sent the agreement to the press. You've constantly speculated that he used the press for publicity. You and I disagree on this point, for a number of reasons. Foremost, I don't think he gave a crap what the general public thought. His concerns were with the folks he saw face to face, the founders, the guys he wanted to sign up for his endeavor. The press was more interested in him than he was in them.
When you buy 200+ acres, and the golf course you build on those 200+ acres fits within the customized boundaries of that area with only a modicum of extra land (much of it in the interior of the course), you're not thinking about extra land for 1.5 acre plots of land for a bunch of millionaires whose only unbuffered property lines are on the Upper East Side.
Sven
Sven,
My belief that he sent that to the press, or more likely, also held a press conference at Garden City that evening to announce the news is also based on my understanding of the man and his very large ego.
Moreover, it's based on the fact that on that very weekend three major NYC newspapers all reported virtually the same thing quoting from the original agreement, contents from the Stillman letter, and quoting Macdonald directly. Please don't ask me to post them all again. ;)
As far as the golf course fitting the 200 acres, estimates I saw here that included all the land between the holes (which is sometimes considerable) had it at 165 and 162 acres, respectively.
-
David,
In addition (and drawing you back several days, I know), CBM draws a clear distinction between Founders and his Board of Directors, with the Board running the club, not the Founders. That said, he mentions the Founders meeting which sounds more like an annual shareholder meeting as opposed to a more regular executive level, or Board of Directors, meeting.
I would agree that the BoD would be comprised of Founders, likely exclusively. The $1,000 subscription was an individual agreement to join a club and changes to that agreement would likely be handled at the individual level by majority or super majority vote.
-
Mike -
Go back and reread the Dec. 16, 1906 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article (which sites the earlier Nov. 1 article). Note the last paragraph.
They were already talking about a clubhouse that could host players for the weekend, and where they could take their meals.
If this was supposed to be a cottage community course, why would they be talking about the need for a clubhouse suitable for hosting the members during their visits?
Sven
Sven,
I don't know what one has to do with the other, honestly. That same article tells us it's "likely" that land bordering the golf course would be sub-divided for future use by the Founders to build summer cottages thereon.
In the meantime, the Shinnecock Inn provided nice lodging and food for visitors.
-
Next one shows the only two areas of any significance that aren't used for golfing. The area near the 9th green was going to be the site of the bath and locker house, and possible the site of a future clubhouse. It measures 14 acres. The low lying area next to the 17th measures about 18 acres.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Poss-Clubhouse-14ac.jpg)
Looks pretty snug to me.
-
That same article tells us it's "likely" that land bordering the golf course would be sub-divided for future use by the Founders to build summer cottages thereon.
A 1904 concept, not a late 1906 thought.
Its a basic question, if that was still the plan, where were the additional 90 acres to make it happen?
Sven
-
David - Your quote of the developer via Millard:
"'If the property fails to be used as a golf course within the next fifty years, it shall revert to us upon payment of the purchase price with interest. If they build later a clubhouse to not cost less than $20,000, this is to be excerpted from the reversion together with 5 acres around it.'"
This doesn't at all say CBM cannot give 90 acres in 1.5 acre lots to his Founding members if there is a golf course there. I'm not even sure how you can read it to say that. That conversation has been couched in terms like "large housing component" and "cottage versus cabin" when neither were ever put on the table by CBM.
According to Redfield, property could only be used for a golf course. If you really believe that giving away 90 acres of building lots for housing is consistent with this use, then I am at a loss as to what to tell you.
-
Next one shows the only two areas of any significance that aren't used for golfing. The area near the 9th green was going to be the site of the bath and locker house, and possible the site of a future clubhouse. It measures 14 acres. The low lying area next to the 17th measures about 18 acres.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Poss-Clubhouse-14ac.jpg)
Looks pretty snug to me.
32 available acres in two plots (and moreover another 10 acres scattered about) of land un-used for golf (not even considering the considerable acreage between the holes in stretches) looks pretty snug? :o
This considering that Macdonald thought he could build an entire course on 120 acres a few months prior and in fact, DID build entire courses on only 120 (i.e. Lido) in the future? That's over 25% of the land of a golf course that he left unused at NGLA!
Can I buy some real estate from you, Sven? ;)
-
Yes, Mike, it looks pretty snug.
As for selling RE, I've got a parcel I'm willing to unload, but the neighbors might get a bit pissed if you build it out all the way to the property lines.
Sven
-
Mike,
With the SI catering to the summertime vacationing crowd, how many members and guests of NGLA do you think the SI could accommodate overnight, in addition to the vacationing hotel guests ?
-
Sven,
Touche'! ;D
-
David,
Then why include the Original Agreement in his letter to Founders in Dec 1906 if it was already null and void, trumped by the Real Estate Developer's dictate as to how the land they purchased could be used? There would be no reason to mention it again in the Stillman Letter as the Original Agreement spelling it out was already attached!
As I have told you over and over, it was included because it was the Agreement upon which he was collecting the $1000. Also, other than the hypotheticals about possible money making schemes, it set out the original idea. It was not null and void. As I have been telling you for years, the part upon which you rely was never binding in the first place, as is evidence by the attempted canal purchase!
Redfield certainly seems to have dictated how the specific land for a clubhouse could be utilized, but I don't see any mention of Real Estate Component that Macdonald proposed in what was quoted, do you? You can speculate that this implied how the remainder of the property could be utilized, but that's not what's quoted, is it? Without further details on that agreement we don't know for sure.
Mike, he is talking about the ENTIRE PARCEL. The language about the clubhouse just meant that if they built an expensive clubhouse, they got to keep it, even they couldn't maintain a golf course on the rest.
According to your calculations Macdonald utilized 162 acres for his golf course, which includes the sometimes sizable gaps between ingoing and outcoming holes such as exists between 5 and 14. Let's say that number was 150, or somewhat less.
This is idiotic! There is NO WAY that CBM was going to allow houses to be built between his golf holes. This sort of nonsense is the reason no one should take your analysis seriously.
Is it your belief that even if CBM had a spare 50 or more acres available not used for the golf course that he'd lock himself into an agreement with a Real Estate Developer where the developer had final say in how Macdonald could use any additional property not used for golf, now and forever-more?
MacDonald wanted to build his ideal golf course. He didn't give a shit about real estate. He knew when he made the deal that there would be no room for real estate, because for months he had been carefully going over the contours in order to place his holes.
-
Mike,
With the SI catering to the summertime vacationing crowd, how many members and guests of NGLA do you think the SI could accommodate overnight, in addition to the vacationing hotel guests ?
Patrick,
I agree. Thirty rooms certainly doesn't seem like much considering that there were 60 Founding Members. :o
Who gets first dibs? Top bunks?? ;D
-
This considering that Macdonald thought he could build an entire course on 120 acres a few months prior...
Remind me again when the offer was made on the 120 acre parcel? Before or after his 1906 trip overseas? By your words, you're suggesting it was in the early Fall of 1906.
Sven
-
According to Redfield, property could only be used for a golf course. If you really believe that giving away 90 acres of building lots for housing is consistent with this use, then I am at a loss as to what to tell you.
Where does he say this? Is it somewhere other than the sentence you posted? Is there more to that passage? Why wouldn't the extra 40 acres have been reverted?
-
David,
Obviously, we're not going to agree on this point and it seems others have disagreements with both of our respective interpretations, as well. I can sense you're getting annoyed and I'd like to keep this discussion collegial.
Let's agree to table this one until we get any additional information, such as metes and bounds or better yet, a copy of the Original and Subsequent Sales Agreement between CBM and Redfield's group. I would think they would be definitive.
Personally, I'm not all that excited with what the metes and bounds would show. We know that they contained the results of months of planning and design and surveying effort but I guess they might shed some light on Patrick's original contention about clubhouse location.
The agreement(s) however, I think would be most informative and if it turns out I'm wrong about the real estate component being dropped prior to December 1906 that's ok, too. I would just like to see some real evidence to indicate that.
Thanks.
***Added*** If you'd like to continue related discussion in response to Jim Sullivan's questions I won't interject.
-
David:
More importantly, the Founders didn't give a $hit about the RE component.
It was a throwaway clause. Basically, he was saying if there is extra land its up to you what we do with it. In 1911/12, the Founders had no interest in using whatever little extra land there was for cabins, cottages, or anything else.
Sven
-
Remind me again when the offer was made on the 120 acre parcel? Before or after his 1906 trip overseas? By your words, you're suggesting it was in the early Fall of 1906.
Sven
Sven,
According to the "Walker Cup" article, Macdonald made the offer "four weeks" after the Realty company purchased the land.
I'm not sure what to think about that and I guess I'd ask the source of that information if I knew the author.
For one thing, it seems odd for CBM to make an offer that quickly, and prior to going abroad to study golf holes over the next several months and collect his related information...especially when you consider the painstaking, detailed methodologies CBM employed at every step. Did that provide him with enough time to study the land and contours such that he'd know he could fit his golf course into the 120 acres? Did he do trial routings to make that determination? I'm not sure he could as he didn't yet know which Ideal holes he would use, no?
In "Scotland's Gift" Macdonald mentions that he decided to build a golf course in the Shinnecock Hills a few weeks after the Realty company purchased their land but he doesn't include the timing of the offer on the 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal. It makes me wonder if there are other sources the author used?
-
I'm getting confused Mike. First the Walker Cup report is used as definitive evidence in this thread, and then its being discredited.
Which one is it?
In any case, where do you get your basis for the statement that he thought he could build on 120 acres a few months prior to offering on the land they bought?
Or is this just speculation, as well.
Sven
-
David:
More importantly, the Founders didn't give a $hit about the RE component.
It was a throwaway clause. Basically, he was saying if there is extra land its up to you what we do with it. In 1911/12, the Founders had no interest in using whatever little extra land there was for cabins, cottages, or anything else.
Sven
Sven,
For someone who rightly cautioned me against presenting pure speculation as fact, you may want to cite your sources for the above contention or re-consider your wording. :-\
-
I'm getting confused Mike. First the Walker Cup report is used as definitive evidence in this thread, and then its being discredited.
Which one is it?
In any case, where do you get your basis for the statement that he thought he could build on 120 acres a few months prior to offering on the land they bought?
Or is this just speculation, as well.
Sven
Sven,
My "few months" could have been anything up to about a year, which in the grand scheme of things is pretty inconsequential, no? One factor leading to a 70% increase in acreage size may have been the Haskell Ball, but that wasn't new news by 1906.
I do think your theory about his trip abroad changing his thinking is an interesting one and I'm going to delve a little deeper in that regard. Is there anything in particular you think might be evidence of that? I'm going to poke around some of his earlier articles about his Ideal Course thinking to see if anything is revealing.
As far as the Walker Cup article, I thought it sounded extremely well researched and presented. I just find that offer four weeks after the Real Estate company purchased the land to be inconsistent with Macdonald's meticulous style and wonder what the source may have been.
-
A few months is two or three. A year is twelve, including a fairly important voyage to Europe.
You see the difference?
-
Jim, this is probably no the place to get into the machinations of real property law (and frankly I don't remember much of it anyway), but if what the developer is saying is accurate, then it looks as if the developer had retained either a Possibility of Reverter or a Right of Entry in the entire property, which is a fancy way of saying that if CBM had tried to use the property for anything other than a golf course, then the property would have reverted back to the development company. (After returning payment and interest, and excepting the clubhouse.)
Of course this didn't mean that every square inch had to be used as fairway, tee, or green, but it did mean that CBM couldn't give away portions of the property for residential building lots. The developer had a a PoR or a RoE for the entire parcel, including the parts you think CBM could give away. Stripping away portions of the land for other uses would have been stripping away the developer's rights.
Another way to look at it is, if the developer is correct, then NGLA only owned the property for the purpose creating and operating a golf club. It didn't own the rights to build houses, and it couldn't grant others rights that NGLA didn't itself possess.
-
David,
I agree that yours is a very possible interpretation of Redfield's words...but the fact that CBM mentioned still thinking about what to do with the land indicates he thought they had options. I think CBM's comments simply tie back to his initial offer/suggestion/intention with the Founders based on assumed acreage. If there were material changes to those expectations in December 1906, he could/would/should have made that clear to his subscribers.
-
Where did CBM mention that he still thinking about what to do with the land?
In 1912 he mention that it was up to founders decide what to do with the remaining land, but this would obviously have been subject to whatever the limitations of the purchase.
-
Which he seems to have never mentioned, hence my reading of Redfield to require a golf course to be there...where your reading limits it to only a golf course being there.
-
We don't know if he ever mentioned it. All we know is he didn't explicitly address it in the few sources we have seen.
As for our respective readings, I don't think it is just a difference of opinion as to the developer's intent. Your reading would have allowed CBM to do strip the developer of his legal interest in portions in the property, and this is not the way such things work.
Lets say CBM had given all 70 founders building lots and they all built their mansions, or sold them, or even sub-divided them, but then the golf course closed. What would have happened to all this land What would have happened to the developer's possibility of reverter? How could CBM give away a property interest that NGLA didn't itself possess?
____________________________________
The only thing that gives me slight pause is that in 1912 CBM indicated that NGLA held the land in "fee simple." Technically, if the developer's description was accurate, then NGLA held the land in something like fee simple determinable or fee simple defeasible subject to a condition consequent, but not fee simple absolute. Maybe CBM was just not being exact with the legalese, but it makes me wonder if perhaps the developer's statement was not entirely accurate, or if there is more to the story.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Poss-Clubhouse-14ac.jpg)
Looks pretty snug to me.
32 available acres in two plots (and moreover another 10 acres scattered about) of land un-used for golf (not even considering the considerable acreage between the holes in stretches) looks pretty snug? :o
Mike,
Several points.
There is NO considerable acreage between holes.
If you were intimately familiar with the topograhy, you'd know that.
Would you tell us how homeowners were going to gain access to the shaded site adjacent to the 9th hole ?
With regard to the land adjacent to # 17, that was steeply sloped land, hardly the land that would be used for development in 1906.
This considering that Macdonald thought he could build an entire course on 120 acres a few months prior and in fact, DID build entire courses on only 120 (i.e. Lido) in the future? That's over 25% of the land of a golf course that he left unused at NGLA!
Mike, this is what I really object to with respect to your posts.
The above paragraph is incredibly disingenuous.
CBM could NOT build NGLA on 120 acres.
To posit that he did so at another course, ergo he could do so at NGLA is so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest .
His motives and design at NGLA required far more than 120 acres and you know it.
Donald Ross could build courses on 100 acres, does that mean that Mountain Ridge was intended to have homes on the 150 acres not used for a 100 acre course.
There's an intellectual dishonesty, an intentional intellectual dishonesty, when you present your position couched in the terms above.
Please stop stretching the truth to reach your goal.
Thanks
-
David & Jim,
Again, let's not look at the purchase from the buyer's perspective (CBM), but, from the seller's perspective.
Why would a real estate developer sell land to potential competitor after they just recently acquired the land for the purpose of developing the real estate ?
As a "real estate" developer, why allow a competitor to acquire the land that the competitor cherry picked out of the entire parcel ?
Answer, you wouldn't sell land you just acquired, and intended to develop, to a competitor.
The developer, selling the land to CBM, felt that the building of a world class golf course would send real estate prices skyward.
Ergo, the developer would never create a competitor on his own land, especially after giving his competitor, first choice on the land.
Sometimes, common sense isn't so common on GCA.com ;D
-
David Moriarty,
I've followed along intently and have learned some interesting stuff. I was wondering if you could list for me the new discoveries we've learned in this thread that we didn't already know from Scotland's Gift?
-
J.C.,
If you've followed along, "intently" why would you want David Moriarty to create the list for you ?
Having followed along "intently" you'd probably be well suited to craft the list.
Why burden David with that task ?
-
Pat,
1. Why don't you let David respond to a post addressed to David before you stick your toothless head into things?
2. Because, his point all along is that between Scotland's Gift and previous threads this thread is not warranted. So, it's best to get the answer from the person who would be the least likely to exaggerate.
-
Pat,
1. Why don't you let David respond to a post addressed to David before you stick your toothless head into things?
That's not really fair to my friend Patrick. I have met him, and he has a tooth.
As for your question, I'll think about it, but we all come into these conversations from different places, and we probably all learn something different. For the group, I think that the Stillman letter was new, and some information about the negotiations between the developer and CBM was new. And these things were very interesting.
As for me, I've learned a few things in my research that I didn't know or wasn't sure about, it it not stuff that has really been discussed here. Plus I've learned about the developer's attempt to make the sale conditional. Oh . . . and I learned that dump trucks existed in 1908.
While I am sure there is more, I am more concerned with figuring out a few more things than going back over what we may or may not have learned. But as I said, I'll think about it.
One thing that always amazes me about Scotland's gift is how well it stands up to intense scrutiny. Even its supposed mistakes aren't always mistakes.
-
JC,
Great question and I think most reading along here will have learned quite a bit...I know I have.
Of course, anyone's answer would be individualized by how much they knew prior and more importantly, how open they are to new information or revising previous beliefs.
Generally those who spend a lot if time shouting down others, insulting them, and impugning their motives learn the least I often find. ;)
-
Mike, this is what I really object to with respect to your posts.
The above paragraph is incredibly disingenuous.
CBM could NOT build NGLA on 120 acres.
To posit that he did so at another course, ergo he could do so at NGLA is so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest .
His motives and design at NGLA required far more than 120 acres and you know it.
Donald Ross could build courses on 100 acres, does that mean that Mountain Ridge was intended to have homes on the 150 acres not used for a 100 acre course.
There's an intellectual dishonesty, an intentional intellectual dishonesty, when you present your position couched in the terms above.
Please stop stretching the truth to reach your goal.
Thanks
Patrick,
Whenever the facts conflict with your beliefs and you get in a bind during these discussions that you somehow invariably turn into fierce debates you have this bad habit of impugning the motives of those bringing those facts to our attention. You should really stop it as it's non-productive and insulting...thanks for your consideration.
Charles Blair Macdonald himself told us that he wanted 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal so he must have believed he could build his ideal course on 120 acres at that site.
He later told others like the folks in Ardmore that they could create courses on around 120 acres and built one at Lido.
As far as separating his inbound and outbound holes with non-golf features please consider Piping Rock.
If you want to have a productive discussion perhaps you could tell us what was different between the Shinnecock Canal site and the Sebonac Neck site that he would require only 120 acres for his course at the first and about 162 (purchasing over 200) at the second? Certainly looking at topographical maps doesn't provide much in the way of distinctions between the two sites.
Hint...I think it was because he was bound to start and end his course at Sebonac Neck at the Shinnecock Inn, 2 miles away from the Peconic Bay where he wanted to go, and plus, he had that pesky agreement with the Founders about providing building lots. ;)
-
All,
It's interesting that Patrick refers to "Scotland's Gift" as "The Bible", because although I agree with David that it's a remarkably accurate recollection of events over 20 years after the fact, it's much like the other Bible in that it's open to interpretation, particularly in relation to events around the creation of National Golf Links of America.
I thought it might be a revealing exercise to ask folks to interpret the two pages in question, taking each event described and telling us if they feel the event happened A) Before the land was secured in late 1906, B) During the Pre-Construction Planning phase from Dec 06 to May 07, C) During Construction and Grow-In, or D) After the course was built and opened.
Here again are the two pages in question;
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7737/17460980634_0309866f55_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8805/18083795185_8c52ba10c9_b.jpg)
I'll take a shot and welcome others to do the same;
First, I think the first section from the offer on the 120 acres near the canal through the description of the Sebonac Neck property as well as the 2 or 3 horseback rides as well as deciding it was what they wanted if they could get it reasonably is obviously A, prior to securing the land.
Second, I think the company agreeing to sell 205 acres and permitting them to locate it as best suited their purposes is what took place in Nov/Dec 1906, as it's almost exactly what was reported in the press the weekend after the deal was signed on December 14, 1906. I think they spent the next several months as Macdonald was quoted in Dec 06, "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months." So A, running through B.
In the next sentence CBM starts with "Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes we wanted, after which we staked out the land we wanted."
I think this section perfectly describes what Macdonald described as the B phase, with that work taking place between December 06 when he secured the land to May 07 when boundaries were determined and construction began.
Here again in Macdonald's words, as quoted in December 1906.
"We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long. The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to use in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."
Next, Macdonald tells us about finding landforms for the Alps, and redan, and Eden and Cape. He further describes the general characteristics of the land they selected. I believe this has to be A, prior to securing the land, as the news reports in Dec 06 have him describing the exact same thing. Further, I find it impossible to believe that two trained eyes like Macdonald and Whigham wouldn't have seen that long, broad rise of the Alps hole during their first two or three horseback trips around the property.
"We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long...Bullshead bay will be skirted for about a mile and at the end of the point there is an opportunity to reproduce the famous short hole at St. Andrews. But there are other opportunities as delightful - for instance, to duplicate the Redan hole at North Berwick. When Whigham saw a certain knoll with me cried out, "We will make a better Alps hole than at Prestwick!"
Then Macdonald tells us when they secured an option on the land and when that land went to final sale, which we've since learned was June of 1907, so this is all B timeframe, as well. Next he refers to commencing development and having to bring in soil in places which is all clearly during C, or construction.
Then he tells us about the lack of funds for a clubhouse and the need to use the Shinnecock Inn for the purpose, and notice how he says because of that fact, "our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn." He did not design the golf course and then the Shinnecock Inn just subsequently happened to be built there. He designed the golf course with the starting and ending points near the Shinnecock Inn because that's where he had to for convenience to that building. This all happened during C, as did the subsequent fire that burned the Shiinnecock Inn to the ground.
Next, Macdonald goes back to discussing the design phase, or actually, to trying to find landforms for the replica holes he wanted which I believe takes us back to A, back to before the land was secured when he writes that his first steps were about locating the Alps, the landform for the redan, the Eden, and Cape. Of course, he could theoretically be talking about "place(ing) those holes on the ground during construction, but that seems unlikely. I think he was telling us that those were the first holes he wanted to place, or fit, into any routing
Thanks, and I welcome others to do this exercise and similarly explain their rationale. It might go a long way towards illuminating where we agree and where we don't and help others understand our opinions, as well. Thanks.
-
JC,
Great question and I think most reading along here will have learned quite a bit...I know I have.
Of course, anyone's answer would be individualized by how much they knew prior and more importantly, how open they are to new information or revising previous beliefs.
Generally those who spend a lot if time shouting down others, insulting them, and impugning their motives learn the least I often find. ;)
Mike, I don't think JC asked the question as a setup for you to take passive-aggressive swipes at unnamed others. At the very least, if you are going to take petty pot shots, have the backbone to do it by name, Mike.
If you've really "learned quite a bit" I'd be curious as to just what it is you've learned? Because it seems like you are still spinning the same basic story as at the beginning of the thread, and in all the other similar threads. In the one area where we have potential to make real progress, you decided to "table" the discussion rather than acknowledge that you have had it wrong for all these years. We all know by now that when you "table" an issue it just means don't like where the conversation is heading, and that you will circle back and start at the beginning yet again next time it suits you. And lo and behold you seem to be back to square one with the "pesky" issue of providing building lots for the founders.
To put it bluntly, it doesn't seem like you have learned anything. But maybe I am wrong. Am I?
-
David,
If you feel among those who spend time shouting others down, insulting them, and impugning their motives it certainly wasn't me calling you on that.
If you haven't learned much on this thread then I'm not sure why you continue to participate daily on page 30 or whatever we're on these days?
If you feel we were making progress on the issue of the building lots, then why did you keep asking me why I was persisting in talking about it, using words like "idiotic".
Sensing your growing ire, I threw up my hands and said, ok...you and I aren't going to agree with each other and we both seem to have others who don't agree with our respective positions, let's table it until we get more evidence. No point continuing to bang and butt heads with each other pointlessly.
I suggested that it would be great if someone was able to find the agreements to secure the land and the subsequent purchase agreement. I'm hopeful that someone will be motivated to do that and know some folks already hoping to find the metes and bounds.
I'll be happy to share what I learned if you'd like for me to elaborate, but much of what I learned were suspicions I confirmed as to the timetable of events, as described in my post above re: "Scotland's Gift". Others, like the housing component getting dropped, I'm still open to revision as evidence warrants.
Thanks.
-
a concession to the links courses he had studied in the UK ?
Given that CBM had the luxury of carving out almost any parcel of land that occupies the current NGLA/Sebonack site, why did he select that particular configuration ?
The location of the Shinnecock Inn might have had some influence, but the clear out and back linear routing would seem to indicate that CBM's attempt at replication extended beyond the individual hole designs.
To get back to the original question....
1. If CBM was to replicate the experience of the links courses he had seen and studied in the UK, he HAD TO start and finish at the Shinnecock Inn. There was no template in the UK in those days that had a course starting and finishing from nowhere (e.g. the 2.5 acre "doughnut" out at the end of the course. All of them started and finished in "town," where beds and food and drink and transport was available.
2. The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick. He was not that stupid.
3. Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.
End of story.
-
David,
If you feel among those who spend time shouting others down, insulting them, and impugning their motives it certainly wasn't me calling you on that.
I know I am not "among those who" [insert insult here], but who the hell knows for sure what you mean to imply when you don't say. Therein lies the problem with these bullshit passive-aggressive pot shots at ambiguous targets. They are craven by design, in that they do not give those being insulted and attacked a chance to address the accusation.
For example, I could say that "some people" are cowards who like to toss out insults but don't want any consequences. But it is much more honest and unambiguous if I just call you out by name.
If you want insult Patrick do it directly. If you want to insult me, do it directly. Quit feigning civility then tossing insults without naming names. Or better yet, quit with the passive-aggressive and pointless shots all together.
If you haven't learned much on this thread then I'm not sure why you continue to participate daily on page 30 or whatever we're on these days?
Gee what a surprise. Another passive-aggressive shot.
Learn to read, Mike. I never said I haven't learned anything. I said you don't seem to have learned anything and I asked you to correct me I am wrong by telling me what you have learned.
If you feel we were making progress on the issue of the building lots, then why did you keep asking me why I was persisting in talking about it, using words like "idiotic".
I use words like "idiotic" because you suggest that CBM was planning on using the space between the golf holes at NGLA for building lots. That is idiotic.
I asked why you were persisting in clinging to a position that by now even you must know is most probably wrong.
Sensing your growing ire, I threw up my hands and said, ok...you and I aren't going to agree with each other and we both seem to have others who don't agree with our respective positions, let's table it until we get more evidence. No point continuing to bang and butt heads with each other pointlessly.
It wouldn't be pointless if you acknowledged and followed the facts. The developer told us that the land would revert to the development if it was used for anything other than a golf course. This means there was no real estate component. Yet you still insist that there was a real estate component.
-
In Chapter X (History of National Golf Links of America) in Scotland's Gift, CBM provided a fairly detailed chronological account of the early history of the course. Mike doesn't want to believe the version as told by CBM so he made up his own by snipping up sentences and rearranging them, losing the context in which they were written. The results are nonsensical.
For example, CBM told us that he earnestly studied the contours and "select[ed] those that would fit naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind." Then in the next sentence CBM described finding some of the classical holes he had in mind; the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape.
But in Mike's chronology, these two things have nothing do with each other. Selecting contours to fit with the classical holes had nothing to do with finding the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape. Mike's version makes no sense.
_________________________________________________________________
Mike encourages others to come up with their own chronology. Why would we? CBM already gives us his chronology, and his chronology is corroborated by the sources. Why would we substitute our wishful thinking for his chronology?
Adding dates and corroborating sources to CBM's chronology might be a useful exercise, and I'll try to put something together, but I can see no good reason to change the order of what CBM told us to fit with whatever our pet theories might be.
-
David,
If you want me to match you insult for insult that's a road I choose not to go down, sorry. I'm not sure why you persist in your anger but your posts to me seethe bitterness, but that's your issue, not mine.
Personally, I'd prefer not to discuss things with you at all. You pretend you're right and pretend that everyone knows you're right but I think you know deep down very differently which is why you spend so much time doing "Rec Room Research" just to argue on this site.
Patrick is a big boy and I have called him out on things. I think his insulting style is humorous to a point but becomes counter-productive and threads lose all cohesiveness in a flurry of green ink.
You've been itching for a fight ever since I returned to GCA but sorry David, take your anger elsewhere because I'm not biting.
Thanks.
-
At least when Patrick calls someone a moron he isn't afraid to name names.
-
Mike,
Back to your chronology. It makes no sense.
CBM told us that he earnestly studied the contours and "select[ed] those that would fit naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind." Then in the next sentence CBM described finding some of the classical holes he had in mind; the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape.
But in your chronology, these two things have nothing do with each other. Selecting contours to fit with the classical holes had nothing to do with finding the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape. It makes no sense.
Take the Cape hole, for example. How did CBM find the hole and know that constructing it was feasible if he had not yet earnestly studied the contours and chosen the ones he had in mind?
-
whoops.
-
?
You didn't have anything incriminating in that post...
-
I inadvertently posted before it was ready. I will finish the post later.
-
Thought maybe I missed something that you agreed with Mike on...
-
a concession to the links courses he had studied in the UK ?
Given that CBM had the luxury of carving out almost any parcel of land that occupies the current NGLA/Sebonack site, why did he select that particular configuration ?
The location of the Shinnecock Inn might have had some influence, but the clear out and back linear routing would seem to indicate that CBM's attempt at replication extended beyond the individual hole designs.
To get back to the original question....
1. If CBM was to replicate the experience of the links courses he had seen and studied in the UK, he HAD TO start and finish at the Shinnecock Inn. There was no template in the UK in those days that had a course starting and finishing from nowhere (e.g. the 2.5 acre "doughnut" out at the end of the course. All of them started and finished in "town," where beds and food and drink and transport was available.
There was no town and there was no access to the course from the south.
Southampton is another two miles removed, no ?
Why would you start and finish at a location with NO access.
Your theory is all wet.
The doughnut was easily accessable via the extension of White's Lane, in fact, the original entrance gate remains at the junction of White's Lane and Sebonac Inlet Rd.
That was the way the "doughnut" hole clubhouse was accessed until Sebonac Inlet rd was altered and the current driveway installed.
Is that how Garden City started and finished ?
Shinnecock ?
2. The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick. He was not that stupid.
Are you insane ?
The land where the clubhouse sits is perfect land for golf.
What, about it's elevation would preclude it from being used for golf ?
3. Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.
There was NO subsequent purchase of the land where the clubhouse sits.
That land was part and parcel of the original 205 acres.
NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green, so tell us how a clubhouse built "near" the current 9th green could be accessed ?
End of story.
End of your convoluted story, but not the real story.
-
Uncle George spent quite a bit of time on this very subject - some of which was covered in The Evangelist.
I'm particularly amused at the polarized dogma being expressed here, when our conclusions posit (perhaps a tick too strong a word) that both positions are in some way absolutely correct - just in different ways and at different moments in the creative process.
Further, as long as everybody has decided to throw feces at each other from their respective cages, did anybody consider the early history of Shinnecock and . . . . . . well . . . . . who might have been a member?
Just a hint.
I wonder about you guys sometimes. I really do.
-
Gib,
I mentioned CBM's membership at SHGC along with his falling out with SHGC, but, few seemed to have picked up on it.
-
Mike,
Why is it that I answer all of your questions, but, you never answer mine ?
So, I'll ask you again.
If CBM was going to build homes along the 9th fairway, as you indicate, how were those homeowners going to access their homes ?
-
Pat,
1. Why don't you let David respond to a post addressed to David before you stick your toothless head into things?
Because you stated that you've been following this thread "intently" ergo, you're more than qualified to make the list instead of burdening David
Presently, I have two teeth that have to be pulled, so I'm getting there.
2. Because, his point all along is that between Scotland's Gift and previous threads this thread is not warranted. So, it's best to get the answer from the person who would be the least likely to exaggerate.
If you've read this thread "intently", then you know how it morphed far from the original post, no ?
-
Above Mike created a chronology of events by shuffling CBM's own account in a manner which more closely matched Mike's pet theories.
In contrast, here is CBM's actual chronology in the order he presents it in Scotland's Gift, from the last full paragraph on page 186 to the end of the first full sentence on page 188. Nothing has been reordered or omitted. The navy is CBM. The dates and couple of contextual additions are mine. I've added the date of the developers initial purchase, the approximate date of CBM's trip abroad (since he wasn't out riding the property while overseas), and the date of the first newspaper account indicating that CBM had reach an agreement with the developer. The bolding is mine as well.
_______________________________________________________
October 1905
Dean Alvord purchased the 2500+ acre Shinnecock Hills parcel from an English syndicate. By the end of 1905, the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty company had been formed to develop the property.
Late 1905 or Early 1906
Shinnecock Hills was also very attractive, but I preferred not getting too close to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.
The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.
We offered SHPB $200 dollars per acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.
Winter and Spring of 1906
CBM and Whigham traveled abroad and studied the great holes overseas.
Between Spring 1906 and October 1906
However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay and laying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Every one thought it more or less worthless. It abounded with bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way one could get over the ground was on ponies.
So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.
Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.
The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose.
October 16, 1906
The Boston Globe reported that that MacDonald had secured 250 acres in the Shinnecock Hills, adjoining SHGC, stretching along Peconic Bay to the north, and skirting the railroad to the south; that he and Whigham had been over the property and that Travis had been invited to consult; that other experts would be consulted; that the contours were similar to SHGC; that that elevation maps had already been created and sent to overseas advisors; and that construction would not start until Spring. Other newspapers reported the purchase, even though it was not yet complete.
Between Spring 1906 and November/December 1906
Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile. The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, there thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us-- a much desired situation.
When playing golf you want to alone with Nature.
November/December1906
We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906 . . .
December 3, 1906
CBM wrote to James Stillman (and presumably the other founders) informing them: "After one year's study and search, I have purchased 200 acres of land in Shinnecock Hills bordering on the Peconic Bay, for the sum of $40,000 --land admirably adapted to our purpose." He also provided many of the same details that would appear in the newspaper accounts a few weeks later, and noted that Travis, Emmett, Whigham, Chauncey, and others had already been over the property.
December 15-17, 1906
Various New York newspaper articles reported that Macdonald had secured the property and provided a general description of CBM's plan, including among other things: mention of the Alps, Redan, Cape, and Eden, along a mention that other features existed for other holes CBM had in mind; mention that the course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile; mention that the course would start and finish near the Shinnecock Inn, mention that the seller would allow "the owners of the property the privilege of determining later the exact boundaries of the purchase;" mention that a committee of three CBM, HJW, Travis, and Emmett had been appointed as the committee to lay out the course, and that they be given three (or five) months to stake out the course and after that a plaster model would be created to aid in construction; etc.
Spring 1907
We . . . took title to the property in the spring of 1907.
Immediately we commenced development.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is all set out in Scotland's Gift, and it tracks the source material.
NOTE: I am not yet clear whether the ""stud[ying] the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [they] had in mind" came before and/or after the October 16, 1906 press reports, and I don't think it matters much.
_____________________________________________________________________
Mike and Jeff have insisted that the developer did not "agree[] to sell" CBM the land until mid-December 1906, but as the October 16 report indicates, CBM and the developer had some sort of an informal agreement in place much earlier.
Mike insists that when CBM noted that they staked out the land they wanted, that this could only refer to the final boundaries in June of 1907. But the press reports indicate that CBM already had a a definite parcel in mind and he even described it, even if the "exact boundaries" had not yet been determined. There is a difference between locating the land they wanted, and setting the "exact boundaries."
Mike suggests that, prior to optioning the property, all that had happened was that Whigham and Macdonald had ridden the property for two or three days. The record indicates that this just isn't accurate. Before mid-October they were already well into studying the property, maps had been made, and, Travis, Emmett, Chauncey and others had already been over the property.
Mike insists that Whigham must have seen the Alps hole on the first ride over the 450 acre property. I don't know when Whigham first saw the Alps hole, and it really does not matter. The various reports leave little doubt that, before mid-December 1906, they had already been "stud[ying] the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [they] had in mind."
CBM's version sets it all out, and it all matches the historical record. Why is this so hard to accept?
-
...........................
2. The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick. He was not that stupid.
Rhic, what the heck is wrong with the 17th at NB. The fairway is wonderfully bumpy, the trench bunker at the foot of the hill, the blind shot to the green, and the dell green - what more could you ask? No need to respond - it's a big world and you're allowed to think it's an abomination even if I don't agree.
................................
3. Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.
Rich, CBM wrote that he had another site for the clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn but abandoned it (after the SI burned down) and decided to go with the Peconic Bay site.
...............................
NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green, so tell us how a clubhouse built "near" the current 9th green could be accessed ?
...................................
Patrick, according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green. See the yellow outline in first aerial below. The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.
As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below) The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8894/17688538505_0e21f1945b_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
-
David,
Re your chronology, I'd suggest a few thoughts for your consideration.
The Walker Cup program says that the 120 acre offer near the Canal was made 4 weeks after Alvord obtained the land. That would put it around early December 1905.
The Stillman letter in the Walker Cup program is dated March 7, 1906 in London. So he was definitely there in March. The letter also states that he will be back (to the USA) in June after two months gathering data overseas. So your "Between Spring 1906" headings are a little off.
In the letter he also states that he's still looking at three localities for the course.
So, when he returned in June 1906 he still had to decide which of the three properties to choose. Also, he came back with a lot of data, plans, maps and principles - more than 30 potential templates if I recall correctly. He still hadn't decided at that point what resemblances and principles he wanted to use. It must have taken some time to digest all the information and winnow it down, let alone apply it to a property that wasn't selected at that point. So sometime between June and October, let's say 4 months, he consolidated his ideas on what template holes and principles to use; selected Sebonac Neck from amongst the three sites under consideration; rode around Sebonac Neck for three days and noticed enough interesting features to decide to offer on the property; and then study it earnestly and route the course before optioning it in November. Not to mention he played tournaments monthly over this time period. And, presumably was still involved in a day job. Sounds like an exceedingly busy 4 or 5 months
-
2. The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick. He was not that stupid.
Rhic, what the heck is wrong with the 17th at NB. The fairway is wonderfully bumpy, the trench bunker at the foot of the hill, the blind shot to the green, and the dell green - what more could you ask? No need to respond - it's a big world and you're allowed to think it's an abomination even if I don't agree.
................................
3. Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.
Rich, CBM wrote that he had another site for the clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn but abandoned it (after the SI burned down) and decided to go with the Peconic Bay site.
Thanks, Bryan.
I'm reasonably sure that when CBM visited NB, the 17th was played from that great fairway to what is now the 1st green. That would have been an abomination as would the 1st hole hitting to what is now the 17th green (i.e. both totally blind and hitting to an elevated and sloping front to back putting surface....). Today the 17th is a great (even though extremely difficult and frustrating) hole and the 1st remains an abomination.
As for the availability of land near todays 9th green/10th tee I defer to you, but my point vis a vis the Shinnecock Inn was that it allowed a place for visitors to arrive, meet and greet and sleep and eat some hash. Every partially "ideal" course in the UK at the turn of the last century had a "Shinnecock Inn" to support the local golf course. After the fire, there was nothing there, and CMB did NOT want to be in the hash and beds business, so he put his club in the middle of the (non-golfable) doughnut. At least IMHO.
Hope all is well.
Rich
-
David,
Why did you not include Macdonald in Dec 1906 quoted as saying the next five months would be spent determining which holes to include and their distances? He is quoted as saying, "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months." You didn't find that relevant to your timeline?
I'd also note that the December 15-17, 1906 newspaper reports were in response to CBM signing the deal for the land on the afternoon of Friday, December 14th. Without mentioning that fact it gives the impression they had all been scooped two months prior by a Boston paper.
Also, as Bryan mentioned, CBM was abroad acquiring reams of drawings and photos into June 1906 so you may want to adjust your timeline.
He reported in March and June 1906 what his next steps were. I think they are rather relevant.
Also, in waist high brambles it might be difficult to survey to a level needed for golf architecture, no? Do you think he cleared 200 acres before surveying on land he hadn't yet secured?
You may want to look at that October Boston Globe report a bit more critically to determine what information was being shared between CBM and the others named in that report during that period.
-
Mike,
Why is it that I answer all of your questions, but, you never answer mine ?
So, I'll ask you again.
If CBM was going to build homes along the 9th fairway, as you indicate, how were those homeowners going to access their homes ?
Pat,
Don't most developments include the creation of roadways? This was a planned development and the men involved could certainly afford to build roads, no?
-
David,
Why did you not include Macdonald in Dec 1906 quoted as saying the next five months would be spent determining which holes to include and their distances? He is quoted as saying, "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months." You didn't find that relevant to your timeline?
I used the Tribune article as a template, and it says 'three months to stake out the course' which I included. I'll change it to the Sun quote if you prefer. It is more specific and it really makes no difference to me or the timeline.
I'd also note that the December 15-17, 1906 newspaper reports were in response to CBM signing the deal for the land on the afternoon of Friday, December 14th. Without mentioning that fact it gives the impression they had all been scooped two months prior by a Boston paper.
Given that on Dec 3, CBM had indicated the sale already had taken place, I'm not sure that Dec.14 date is accurate or important, but I'll consider adding it.
Also, as Bryan mentioned, CBM was abroad acquiring reams of drawings and photos into June 1906 so you may want to adjust your timeline.
I haven't gone back to through my research to confirm the exact dates so I used the general description for now. But it makes no difference to the point of the timeline if I say Spring or June. If it is important to you and if you have direct source references for the exact dates, I'd be glad to change it.
He reported in March and June 1906 what his next steps were. I think they are rather relevant.
To the order things happened on the NGLA property? How so?
Also, in waist high brambles it might be difficult to survey to a level needed for golf architecture, no? Do you think he cleared 200 acres before surveying on land he hadn't yet secured?
No and No. You need to make up your mind Mike. You can't insist that finding some features was a breeze, but that finding others was impossible.
You may want to look at that October Boston Globe report a bit more critically to determine what information was being shared between CBM and the others named in that report during that period.
If by "look critically" you mean ignore the parts you don't like, then no thanks. The article said what I said it said, whether you chose to believe it or not.
-
David,
Briefly back from my well deserved and self imposed time out for bad behavior, if only briefly.
I generally agree with your timeline, but put some elements further back. Also, nice work on comparing property lines. A few notes on my slightly differing perspective:
If you go to page 202-3, CBM answers a question I asked a while back - it was he who paid for the summer 1906 survey can contour maps, and it was Seth Raynor he paid to do it. Somehow, I had not noticed that before. Just a new fact to point out (I think).
If CBM returns in June (or late May), takes a bit to search, finds the SB land, rides it, gets agreement from SHPB to survey the property, hire Raynor to survey it, then add the contour map, etc. I believe that analysis takes them further in the summer.
BTW, my reading of page 202-3 seems to indicate that he hired Raynor to first survey (probably initial/potential boundaries) and then a bit later, make the contour map. I doubt CBM would order a topo map and then charge ahead before having it, placing the second ride and earnest contour study (which in part could be having Raynor make the maps) later in summer or early fall, giving some time to negotiate the option by October. I see little possibility of CBM having a full routing in mid summer or spring. I think he would put in more work after formally had option to the property. It would be sort of a waste until he was sure, right?
Second, your synopsis of both the October and December articles conveniently leaves out the contemporary report and quotes putting design in the future. Only Whigham had seen the property by October 16, and Travis had been invited. Later, they had all seen it. I see Mike points it out, too, but you dismiss it as making no difference. And, you don't seem to feel the need to address the points brought up with any facts, other than your analysis means it makes no difference.
In Dec. 1906, CBM is quoted as saying “the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans. He also says, “Distances and holes to be reproduced will be decided in the next five month.”
I see Mike points it out, too, but you again dismiss it as making no difference, yet don't say why. I think most historians would consider that contemporary quote a more reliable source than a book published in 1928 (and written God Knows when, it did stretch out, but was not contemporary) Again, I have a hard time putting any other interpretation to it other than to read it for exactly what CBM says.
Those quotes lead me to believe that only a few holes had been picked out (the same 5-6 always mentioned, and oddly all near the center of the property, not near the coast or Inn) and the general land between the Bay and the Inn selected and probably at least initially staked, considering the 205 Ac target, those features, the Inn, etc. Every time I read them, ALL it says is those holes have been found. Nowhere does it specifically say a routing has been attempted, started, much less completed.
Certainly the entire routing cannot have been finalized before October 1906. CBM says so. I think we probably have agreement that the early stages of land selection, some routing or hole selection was accomplished by October 1906. And, it doesn't make sense (although it could be possible) that 80% of the routing was done in a month, and what you call details takes 7 more. Or that he would order a contour map, and not wait for it until starting the routing, or that he would invest energy in final routing until he had a legal agreement that the land was his (i.e. the option)
It probably isn’t worth arguing the difference of opinion, but they do exist in how complete the routing was. I am with Mike, I doubt any of us will change our minds, no matter how many times we type our respective positions.
I guess all I would ask from you, if you would be so inclined is a specific fact based rebuttal as to why the October and December CBM quotes both say design is generally in the future? I could be wrong, but I don't think I have seen you do this, but my apologies if I am wrong on that point. It has been a long thread for all of us. (BTW, I don't consider your constant dismissal of me not understanding the design process circa early 1900's as a fact........)
Like you, I don’t think the roads, bramble height, setting sun, better land on what is now Sebonac GC, donut hole, etc. are all that relevant. We have nuanced differences on the surplus land issue, from never to diminished in scope.
I do think we have learned some things about the property and process. In some posts on this thread, golfclubatlas.com was working just as its founder intended. Maybe we should give him a lot?
Believe it or not, edited for brevity shortly after posting........
-
Bryan, Sorry I missed your post this morning.
David,
Re your chronology, I'd suggest a few thoughts for your consideration.
The Walker Cup program says that the 120 acre offer near the Canal was made 4 weeks after Alvord obtained the land. That would put it around early December 1905.
The author doesn't source the information so I can't tell from the Walker Cup article whether he is relying on different information or on CBM's reference to a few weeks.
As for the dates of the 1906 trip, I have those somewhere. I was just roughly bracketing out the time he was gone. For the purposes of the chronology I don't think Spring vs. June is significant but I'll change it to be more exact when I get around to pulling up the exact dates.
I disagree with your premise that when he returned that he still hadn't begun winnowing his list of favored holes, and I'm not sure what it has to do with what he did at NGLA. Maybe I am missing your point?
In your description of his busy 4 or 5 months, don't forget that - if the Globe article is to be believed - he also had maps made to send to his advisors abroad.
I dont think it is a stretch at all for him to have come up with a rough idea of the routing during the Summer and Fall of 1906. It was Summer. It makes more sense to have him in Southampton going over the land in the Summer and early Fall than it does to put him out there in the middle of Winter doing the same thing. Southampton was a Summer colony for CBM's ilk, and your draft source has suggested that he was back in Europe over the Winter.
Don't get me wrong. I've repeatedly said that plenty of details were left to be worked out, and certain aspects of the routing may have not yet been finally determined. But CBM provided a pretty extensive description of the project in December, and they had been studying the land for at least a few months on before that. It seems that they were well on their way by the time the option was secured.
-
David,
I don't agree that winter was a factor either, given CBM said they would be doing it from Dec. to May1907. Again, his words, not mine.
Your last summary of the timeline fits pretty well with my longer version just above, and admits what we all know - I don't think the historic record is detailed enough to know exactly how much was routed by the time of the option. Obviously, enough to make him secure enough to pay for the option, but nowhere near complete.
I guess the crux of the debate is just how the routing process did take place:
Did he route in the field, or on those topos after a few rides?
Did he wait for the committee to weigh in after October, or did he feel it was really his job to do (I think the latter)
Just how hard was it to fit other holes around the six he found? How hard was it to fit templates to other topo?
Was he the type to make his mind up quickly, or would he have fiddled with the routing and design of the ideal course right up until the day it was time to start construction (and maybe beyond, changing his mind after construction started, and as he reports, with bunkering, for the next couple of decades)
How and when did Raynor fit into this, since he said he gave him the Scotland maps to draw faithfully. (later than the contour map survey)
I would say we would be lucky to uncover any more articles that answer any one of those, and would be glad for it to relieve our endless speculation.
-
Jeff, you will be happy to know that an article in the East Hampton Star from Feb 20, 1920 clears it all up as to who laid out the National links in that Seth Raynor laid out the National Links. Speculation over.
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Everglades%20Club%20Seth%20Raynor%20The%20East%20Hampton%20Star%20Feb%2020%201920_zpsks7b47sa.jpg)
-
I think we're misreading the Globe article based on a misunderstanding by the author. I'll explain as time permits
As an aside, this morning I chuckled at the ironic humor of David arguing for a much longer design phase and me arguing for a more condensed timeframe.
-
Jeff, you will be happy to know that an article in the East Hampton Star from Feb 20, 1920 clears it all up as to who laid out the National links in that Seth Raynor laid out the National Links. Speculation over.
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Everglades%20Club%20Seth%20Raynor%20The%20East%20Hampton%20Star%20Feb%2020%201920_zpsks7b47sa.jpg)
Josh,
My earlier questions were about who did the 1906 contour map, which I think is cleared up on page 203 of SG. We knew he was hired to survey, lay out, direct construction, design drainage and sprinklers, pumps, etc. (also on 203-4 of SG)
I have also wondered just when he drew the faithful holes from Scotland for CBM. It would seem sometime in the design process, although CBM notes it was later than the contour maps he produced. It could be anywhere from October 1906 through the end of construction, but the earlier, the better.
Mike,
Well that would be interesting. Look forward to it....
-
Jeff Brauer,
First, before your hiatus for "bad behavior" you were in the midst of throwing a fit in which you repeatedly and falsely accused me of misquoting Scotland's Gift so as to disingenuously manipulate the chronology. As you well know, I did no such thing. My chronology then was straight out of Scotland's Gift, as is my chronology now.
Are you going to do the right thing and set the record straight regarding your false accusations, or not?
Second, I see that even in your post above you cannot resist another of your little swipes at me. You again imply that I am manipulating the historical record by "conveniently" leaving things out of my extremely brief synopsis of the October Globe article and December articles. I used the Tribune article as a template for my brief summary of the December articles (because I happened to have it handy) and the Tribune article uses slightly different wording than the Sun passages you reference. As I said to Mike, I'll make the change to the language as the Sun article has it. As for the October article I have no idea what you are talking about.
It is more than a little ironic that you and Mike are nitpicking the language in a couple of sentences of my synopsis and implying ill-intent, given the utter disregard the two of you regularly show toward presenting an accurate factual record. Even in your posts complaining about my post, you get plenty of facts wrong, talking about the "second ride" for instance, as if all this one done on two horseback rides! For another example, see your references to Raynor having been out there in 1906. Where exactly does the record say that? Plenty more examples, but what's the point? Facts have never been your strong suit.
Third, as to answer to your request that I explain CBM's plan to continue the design process after the course was optioned, I have always acknowledged that this was the case. According to CBM, plenty of design work left for later, including exact measures of the holes and the decision on which else of the overseas features he would incorporate where. This does nothing to diminish my point, which is that they were already earnestly studying the contours and roughly placing the golf holes before the option was signed, and that some semblance of a rough routing was in place before they optioned the property.
Fourth, you keep saying that all he had decided on were some holes in the middle of the property. This isn't true. He also mentioned that the course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile, that it would start and finish near Sebonack, and that it would front Peconic Bay, and that it would fit in a two mile stretch that was only 840 feet wide. So he had already figured out quite a lot more than just the location of some holes in the middle of the property.
-
David,
Just two points really. One that we should use the more exact dates where we know them. And, the second that there had to be a whole lot of routing and design work going on in a compressed timeframe given CBM's desire to build his ideal course of template holes - whether ones with exact resemblences or that included ideal principles in some feature. I think most everyone would agree that Macdonald was a genius in what he created at NGLA in that era. For those that think it all happened very rapidly, that he saw a bunch of topographical features that fit his desired templates and that all he had to do was connect the dots on these found feature sites, it just seems too simplistic to me. He was breaking new ground in architecture and design - it seems to me difficult to do that quickly. To me, the theory that he found the one in a million piece of property in Sebonac Neck where sites for his winnowed down template list were just sitting there waiting to be connected into a coherent out and back routing seems preposterous. I think (and can't prove it) that the routing and design process took from the summer of 1906 to at least the summer of 1907.
-
As an aside, this morning I chuckled at the ironic humor of David arguing for a much longer design phase and me arguing for a more condensed timeframe.
Mike Cirba, I am long over chuckling over this "irony" because it has been haunting these conversations for years.
I have always argued that the creation of NGLA was a long, detailed, and careful process. Whereas you have always tried to stuff the bulk of design process into a few months in Winter and early Spring of 1907, as if CBM hadn't even bothered to considered how the golf course would fit on the land before then. (And before you bother denying this, keep in mind that you have been recently argued that he didn't couldn't have even bothered to stake out rough property boundaries until after the property had been cleared.)
-
David,
I still believe nothing was either cleared, staked out, or topographically surveyed to the detail necessary for architecture by Dec 1906, correct.
-
Wait a minute Mike, You have suggested that you don't think they could even staked out the rough outline of the property before clearing. Correct?
So when did they do the clearing? And when did they first stake out the rough borders of the property? Have you changed your position on these?
-
Don't know if this article from Brooklyn Life on March 31, 1906 has been posted before or not, but here it is. It seems that the 1.5 acre lots idea is still alive in the reportorial minds although it has morphed into "villa" sites.
Interesting too that Macdonald's letter from London is described as a "circular" letter. That implies to me that it was meant for publication. One wonders why CBM would be promoting his ideal course through the press if he already had his founders and their money tied up.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8831/18177223436_847f56b589_o.jpg)
-
David,
Just two points really. One that we should use the more exact dates where we know them.
Sure. As I said, As I said, I'll add the exact dates when I get a chance to pull them up. If you want them sooner, then dig up the source material yourself, and I'll be glad to add them in my next draft.
And, the second that there had to be a whole lot of routing and design work going on in a compressed timeframe given CBM's desire to build his ideal course of template holes - whether ones with exact resemblences or that included ideal principles in some feature.
I don't see it as a compressed timeframe at all. Keep in mind that all I am suggesting was that CBM and HJW came up with a rough idea of how the holes would fit on the land so that they could roughly stake out the parcel they wanted and option the property.
I think most everyone would agree that Macdonald was a genius in what he created at NGLA in that era. For those that think it all happened very rapidly, that he saw a bunch of topographical features that fit his desired templates and that all he had to do was connect the dots on these found feature sites, it just seems too simplistic to me. He was breaking new ground in architecture and design - it seems to me difficult to do that quickly. To me, the theory that he found the one in a million piece of property in Sebonac Neck where sites for his winnowed down template list were just sitting there waiting to be connected into a coherent out and back routing seems preposterous.
First Bryan, you are throwing out a lot straw men here. Who are "those people that think it all happened very rapidly" or "quickly." Certainly I am not one of them. My design process stretches as far as anyone's although I see that you roughly agree with me.
Second, I still don't know what you mean by a "winnowed down template list" and I don't think that is how CBM designed the course. I think that CBM tells us an awful lot about how the process worked, and confirms that an awful lot had happened before the option.
- In Scotland's Gift, CBM indicated that he "first placed the holes which were almost unanimously considered the finest in their character in Great Britain." From the description which followed, it is a safe bet he meant the Alps, Redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road. Three of these had already been singled out for praise by CBM and Whigham in the reports about the option/purchase. CBM found the Sahara bunker/hole (which seems like an easy one,) and indicated that the Road Hole was "easy to duplicate."
- CBM also had indicated in December 1906 that he had found a perfect location for his new "Cape" concept. Given that according to the blueprint much of this location was under water, on the beach, and/or in a swamp when he found it, this doesn't sound like a simplistic hole to locate to me.
- At the same time, CBM indicated that the course would start and finish near the Shinnecock Inn, would have mile of frontage on Bullsead, and the length and approximate width of the course corridor.
- According to CBM all the rest of the holes were either "more or less composite" or "absolutely original."
In terms of time-lining the process, once CBM got into the composite and original holes, he was not as bound to exact templates of entire golf holes, and there was more flexibility to determine how and where to use certain features. Some probably would have been pretty obvious based on the landforms, like the punchbowl green location, the Sahara Bunker, perhaps the original the drive on what became the channel hole. Some were probably more more complicated, and a few probably weren't worked out until some time later. But again, all I am suggesting is that he had a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land. I am not suggesting that every feature had been chosen and definitely planned.
I think (and can't prove it) that the routing and design process took from the summer of 1906 to at least the summer of 1907.
To at least the summer of 1907? Well they were already providing detailed descriptions of many of the holes, including hole numbers, by early May 1907, so this can't be right.
-
Bryan,
That same March 1906 Whigham called the housing component "ingenious".
Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the first offer on 120 acres happening in the winter of 1905?
-
Jeff Brauer,
Second, I see that even in your post above you cannot resist another of your little swipes at me. You again imply that I am manipulating the historical record by "conveniently" leaving things out of my extremely brief synopsis of the October Globe article and December articles. I used the Tribune article as a template for my brief summary of the December articles (because I happened to have it handy) and the Tribune article uses slightly different wording than the Sun passages you reference. As I said to Mike, I'll make the change to the language as the Sun article has it.
We would appreciate it, since those points of future design work should be part of the record. Sorry for the swipe, but let's face facts - we are all guilty to some degree selective in what we find important, even to the degree of using one PP of an article and declaring it sound, but sometimes the very next PP and somehow declaring it less important. And again, I think you adding at least generalized months on the timeline is a great idea.
As for the October article I have no idea what you are talking about.
The parts of the October article saying: "As regards construction, nothing has yet been done, nor will active operations begin until spring, when by that time, the opinions of expert players both here and the other side will have been sifted and analyzed.” The article also notes that only Whigham has been on property, and others invited. The December articles note most of the committee has been there.
To me, that part of the record puts most of the committee design work between those two dates. How final could a design be if they are still analyzing in their own words?
So what part of that article saying that don’t you understand?
The December article has similar quotes.
“After a year of research and study (not design) CBM announced that he had finally purchased 200 acres of land……
”Travis, Emmet, Whigham and MacDonald WILL constitute the committee to lay out the course. Three months have been allocated (not spent yet) for that part of the work. Then, a miniature model of the links will be made, including exact reproduction of many famous holes that are to be copied.” (note, the words in Parentheses are mine)
I also note that SG uses the words "finds holes" before the option was obtained, but changes to "I first PLACED holes" after the option was obtained.
As I said in an earlier post, we all know that he did enough upfront work to be comfortable that this was his parcel, given his wiggle room. Maybe we just can't know more. My opinion is driven by the words listed above, and taking them at face value, with no interpretation.
....... Even in your posts complaining about my post, you get plenty of facts wrong, talking about the "second ride" for instance, as if all this one done on two horseback rides! For another example, see your references to Raynor having been out there in 1906. Where exactly does the record say that? Plenty more examples, but what's the point? Facts have never been your strong suit.
In mentioning a second riding, I never say there weren't more. Another example of you changing things up just a bit just to find a way to disagree with us. Scotlands Gift, page 203 answers your second question as I just posted.
Over the years I have seen many of us use small discrepancies between words to make a point. Certainly, the devil can be in the details and I think we are all on the look out for possible small discrepancies that can alter the true meaning of words. In short, you are not immune to that either. ;D
Third, as to answer to your request that I explain CBM's plan to continue the design process after the course was optioned, I have always acknowledged that this was the case. According to CBM, plenty of design work left for later, including exact measures of the holes and the decision on which else of the overseas features he would incorporate where. This does nothing to diminish my point, which is that they were already earnestly studying the contours and roughly placing the golf holes before the option was signed, and that some semblance of a rough routing was in place before they optioned the property.
I have always said we weren't that far apart. To the degree you push the routing forward from late summer, then I disagree. I do believe it is important in my understanding of the process back then. Hate to bring it up, but I see some parallels in Merion and NGLA and in both cases, I (and many) read the record as more routing done later than you seem to believe. And, I think the written record supports that in both cases, if you take the most direct quotes and simplest explanations.
Fourth, you keep saying that all he had decided on were some holes in the middle of the property. This isn't true. He also mentioned that the course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile, that it would start and finish near Sebonack, and that it would front Peconic Bay, and that it would fit in a two mile stretch that was only 840 feet wide. So he had already figured out quite a lot more than just the location of some holes in the middle of the property.
If you read CBM carefully, he mentions the other stretches of land, but never attributes a specific hole to them like he repeatedly does on his five or six. To do more is not reading CBM as he wrote, it is projecting a point of view you already hold.
By the way, in my post 425 I reposted a 1907 article which does talk about some specific holes out on the Bay and elsewhere. I believe that they CBM would have specified those glorious holes out on the water if he knew where they were going to be.
I am not going to get into a lot of back and forth with you, but did want to point out for the last time, I hope, our slight differences. You can be quite strident even with those who agree with you 90%. And, as I have said, we might be in near perfect agreement, depending on just what you mean by "at least a rough routing." Obviously they narrowed down their options over time, and seemed to be close to a parcel by October and the option.
Again, not sure of your motivation, but mine is to clearly understand how classic designers worked, and from my perspective, you have it mostly right, but slightly wrong.
-
Does anyone really think that the guys who signed on as founding members gave a crap about 1.5 acres of land? Go back and look at the list of names involved.
Its like trying to entice Warren Buffet to back your new company by offering him a share of stock.
Preposterous.
-
Similarly preposterous would be to offer it to them and then pull it away without an explanation...especially if the explanation is that someone else actually holds the rights to that land...
-
I had hoped we'd make some progress before we get into this, but Bryan's line of thinking has convinced me to bring it up now. . . .
The blueprint provides some terrific hints as to how the plan took shape. It looks like:
1. Most of the green locations came first. (Some physical features like the alps mound and other natural bunkers might have been on the map too, but it is hard to tell.)
2. Then straight line elevations were added between consecutive green locations.
3. Then tees and other features were added later
4. A few of the green locations either were not marked on the original map or they were erased. Others were marked in different places than where they ended up.
I'll do a more detailed analysis at some point in the future, but this gives a rough idea of how the map was created, and it may give us insight into how the course was created as well.
-
Similarly preposterous would be to offer it to them and then pull it away without an explanation...especially if the explanation is that someone else actually holds the rights to that land...
Jim:
But it wasn't "pulled away from them."
The founders elected not to do anything with the excess land. They didn't care about it.
Further, you could argue that the original subscription agreement was not an offer of land, merely as to what could be done if there was excess land (along with the debenture idea). The fact that "details to be worked out later" were not worked out suggests that the Vanderbilts, Morgans, Rockefellers and everyone else of their ilk didn't really look at the project as an investment opportunity.
Sven
-
Similarly preposterous would be to offer it to them and then pull it away without an explanation...especially if the explanation is that someone else actually holds the rights to that land...
Jim, We only know what made it to the papers. You don't know whether there was additional explanation along the way or not. Also, it could be that they founders were smart enough to read the original hypothetical in the 1904 letter a what it was - a 'for instance' that that wasn't really ever part of CBM's core idea for his ideal course.
-
As for the availability of land near todays 9th green/10th tee I defer to you, but my point vis a vis the Shinnecock Inn was that it allowed a place for visitors to arrive, meet and greet and sleep and eat some hash. Every partially "ideal" course in the UK at the turn of the last century had a "Shinnecock Inn" to support the local golf course.
Since the SI was a "resort hotel" in the summer months, with a limited amount of rooms, how could it accommodate members and guests at NGLA when it was full of vacationing guests ?
After the fire, there was nothing there, and CMB did NOT want to be in the hash and beds business, so he put his club in the middle of the (non-golfable) doughnut.
What about the land in the doughnut hole makes it non-golfable ?
How many times have you played NGLA ?
At least IMHO.
Hope all is well.
Rich
-
Jeff Brauer,
Once I saw that you ignored my first point and that you haven't bothered to set the record straight regarding your outrageous and false accusations, I quit reading. I have no interest in discussing anything with you until you clear the air.
-
But David,
You've contended that Redfield held reversion rights to the extent that nothing other than a golf course (and it's clubhouse) could go there...in other words, they couldn't have done anything with it so why waste the energy of pointing out that they hadn't done anything with it?
Let me ask you this hypothetical...The entire course was routed and planned on the same 165 of 205 acres purchased. Each large portion you've highlighted become attractive to two members. Could those two have offered to buy those plots from the Club or Founders and build homes on them? In other words, how extensive were the developers rights after selling them the land? Could he have stopped (or confiscated) a Yacht marina? How about if they put a shooting facility out in one of those open areas?
-
Jeff, you will be happy to know that an article in the East Hampton Star from Feb 20, 1920 clears it all up as to who laid out the National links in that Seth Raynor laid out the National Links. Speculation over.
Josh,
It's obvious that you've never read "Scotland's Gift"
It's equally obvious that you believe everything you read in the newspapers.
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/Everglades%20Club%20Seth%20Raynor%20The%20East%20Hampton%20Star%20Feb%2020%201920_zpsks7b47sa.jpg)
-
Mike,
Why is it that I answer all of your questions, but, you never answer mine ?
So, I'll ask you again.
If CBM was going to build homes along the 9th fairway, as you indicate, how were those homeowners going to access their homes ?
Pat,
Don't most developments include the creation of roadways?
They should.
This was a planned development and the men involved could certainly afford to build roads, no?
Not if they didn't own the land.
And, they didn't own the land that could provide access.
-
David,
Re your chronology, I'd suggest a few thoughts for your consideration.
The Walker Cup program says that the 120 acre offer near the Canal was made 4 weeks after Alvord obtained the land. That would put it around early December 1905.
The Stillman letter in the Walker Cup program is dated March 7, 1906 in London. So he was definitely there in March. The letter also states that he will be back (to the USA) in June after two months gathering data overseas. So your "Between Spring 1906" headings are a little off.
In the letter he also states that he's still looking at three localities for the course.
So, when he returned in June 1906 he still had to decide which of the three properties to choose. Also, he came back with a lot of data, plans, maps and principles - more than 30 potential templates if I recall correctly. He still hadn't decided at that point what resemblances and principles he wanted to use. It must have taken some time to digest all the information and winnow it down, let alone apply it to a property that wasn't selected at that point. So sometime between June and October, let's say 4 months, he consolidated his ideas on what template holes and principles to use; selected Sebonac Neck from amongst the three sites under consideration; rode around Sebonac Neck for three days and noticed enough interesting features to decide to offer on the property; and then study it earnestly and route the course before optioning it in November. Not to mention he played tournaments monthly over this time period. And, presumably was still involved in a day job. Sounds like an exceedingly busy 4 or 5 months
And what about that schedule seems unusual to you ?
-
Patrick, according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green.
See the yellow outline in first aerial below.
The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.
That's nice Bryan, but, tell us, how could you get from the road, the North road to that property without having to traverse someone else's property ?
According to your blueprint he also owned parts of the second green and second tee/hole at Shinnecock
As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below) The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.
In the past, you argued that there were no access roads for the trucks/wagons, so now you've changed your mind and you're now claiming that there were access roads ? ? ?
Funny how you contradict yourself depending upon the situation.
I don't put much faith in your overlay.
If anything it would counter everything that Mike is claiming, for if there were roads throughout the property, as you illustrate, the land must have been cleared for those roads, making access to the property quite easy.
Why have to ride horses when you had roads you could walk on ?
What's your next hair brained theory ?
In addition, why would CBM create a golf course that required the removal and relocation of roads, certainly an expensive task
But, I'm still waiting for that expert on NGLA, Rich Goodale, to tell us why the land where the clubhouse currently sits, is unfit for golf.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8894/17688538505_0e21f1945b_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
-
But David,
You've contended that Redfield held reversion rights to the extent that nothing other than a golf course (and it's clubhouse) could go there...in other words, they couldn't have done anything with it so why waste the energy of pointing out that they hadn't done anything with it?
That is not exactly what I have contended. Regardless I was referring to the possibility that CBM may have clarified at an earlier date that the real estate hypothetical was just a "for instance" and was not really part of the deal. I think the 1904 letter already implies this, and I think the Dec. 1906 letter to Stillman does too, but it is possible that CBM could have also clarified at some other point (explicitly or implicitly), such as when he was trying to buy 120 acres that couldn't have had any real estate component.
Let me ask you this hypothetical...The entire course was routed and planned on the same 165 of 205 acres purchased. Each large portion you've highlighted become attractive to two members. Could those two have offered to buy those plots from the Club or Founders and build homes on them? In other words, how extensive were the developers rights after selling them the land? Could he have stopped (or confiscated) a Yacht marina? How about if they put a shooting facility out in one of those open areas?
As for two members buying thirty-some acres of land from NGLA to build there estates, I think we've already covered this . . . There some latin maxim that essential says that you cannot sell or give away an interest which you do not yourself possess. (I can't sell you Patrick's car.) According to the developer, CBM only owned the property for the purpose of creating and operating a golf club. In other words, the developer did not sell NGLA the right to use the land for building lots. Since, according to the developer, NGLA did not acquire the right to use the land for building lots, it could not sell or give away this right to your two members.
It is abstract concept when it comes to real estate because we generally to think of real estate ownership in terms of fee simple absolute where you can use or dispose of your land as you please, but this type of arrangement was a real thing (even though courts largely frown on these types of things today, and such things have even been abolished by statute in some jurisdictions.)
As for your other hypotheticals, it would probably depend upon the wording of the actual limitation in the deal, and also on the proclivity of the jurisdiction and court. If the "Yacht Basin" was on navigable waters, then I don't think ti would have been part of the original purchase. If it was then CBM would probably argue that it was part of the golf club and no different than a parking lot for his rich friends. As for a shooting facility, did one exist? If so, then CBM would probably have argue that it too was just part of the golf club. I suppose developer could have try to take back the property based on such uses, but as I said the courts don't look on such arrangements too kindly, and I wouldn't guess they would get too far, especially because even with a shooting range and/or Yacht basin, the developer would still be in a position to be made entirely whole if the golf club failed. It is different in the real estate hypothetical, because in that hypothetical property is being deeded over to someone else, and the developer would be losing its right to retake the property if the golf club failed.
Keep in mind that in all of this I am relying on what the developer said. If he had it wrong then my position would obviously change.
-
Bryan,
Per my earlier note, on March 4th 1906 while Macdonald was abroad gathering info on golf holes, HJ Whigham called the housing plan "ingenious".
How could the offer on the 120 acres near the Canal be in December of 1905??
Could it be that Chris Millard is misinterpreting CBM writing that he decided a few weeks after the Real Estate Company purchased the 3000 or so acres that he wanted land in the Shinnecock Hills as having made an offer at that time?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
-
Jeff Brauer,
Once I saw that you ignored my first point and that you haven't bothered to set the record straight regarding your outrageous and false accusations, I quit reading. I have no interest in discussing anything with you until you clear the air.
David,
I admit I got it wrong and I apologize. Now you can answer the questions. Thanks.
Mike,
I think that article sets CBM's return in June pretty well. At least until any other article comes out, then we can presume the process started in June, and also included looking at two other properties (although I am inclined to think maybe it was just Montauk and the third was the old offer. That said, who knows who heard of the scheme and tried to get CBM to buy their land) Even later, though, CBM said he had never seen the land at Montauk, so maybe that all remains a mystery and side note.
Do I read it as the land per founder was down to just one acre by March 1906? Its fuzzy.
Pat,
Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27. Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened. Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.
-
Mike
1. Why are you back on this real estate stuff when the developer told us that there was no real estate scheme?
2. I addressed your concerns about my chronology. Are you going to answer my questions about your current position on clearing the property and staking out the rough boundary of the parcel?
3, As for this article, I'd like to see the "cable" on which the article was based. I've read similar articles from the time period and they make me wonder about the byline on this one. Not saying that Whigham didn't author an article or even this article, but I'd like to see the actual Whigham wrote (if he did) instead of a wire story in a Omaha paper from a London Paper cable.
-
In early March 1906, CB Macdonald wrote Walter Travis from abroad and wrote the following article. Note his mention that after he returns he’ll have a bunch of course and hole and then will confer with experts on both sides of the Atlantic and even vet this in the press as to the correct holes to select as Ideal. News articles of the time also mentioned that Macdonald went abroad to study the holes again because his earlier ideas about which holes to reproduce needed revision due to the relatively recent introduction of the Haskell Ball.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8868/17584710634_faf7830a82_b.jpg)
Upon his return in June of 1906, he still hadn’t selected a site, or the exact holes, but has “draughtsmen now making exact diagrams of certain holes…” so it seems he is still working out his paper portfolio.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7755/18181069246_efd62a1f38_b.jpg)
Three and a half months later on October 15th, 1906 an article is printed in the Boston Globe, reproduced in two parts below. CBM had just returned a few months prior with surveyor's maps of the great holes abroad. We know from the articles above that his intention was to continue conferring with experts here and abroad after his return with the golf course maps and photos in an effort to achieve some type of consensus as to which holes to reproduce.
Here’s how I think the Boston Globe reporter, who got numerous things incorrect as you’ll see below, interpreted those interchanges;
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8854/18198576275_bb212d3682_b.jpg)
Years later, in CBM's 1912 Letter to the Founders, he includes this portion;
"We have also been helped by some of
the most eminent men in the game of golf
abroad, who have taken a most friendly
interest in the undertaking, and I have to
thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson,
Mr. John L. Low, Mr. 'Harold
H. Hilton, Mr. J. Sutherland, Mr. W. T.
Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles
Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. Alexander
MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H
S. Everard, for the maps, photographs,
and suggestions which they have given us."
No mention of them evaluating the Sebonac Neck property, or looking at topographical maps of Sebonac Neck CBM sent to them prior to his purchase. I think the writer, who seems confused on a number of points as seen below (i.e. size of property, purchase vs offer, cost, etc.) also misunderstood that the maps in question were of famous holes abroad that were intended to be copied in whole and part on the new land in question.
You’ll notice that he talks about the ongoing correspondence between CBM and expert opinions here and abroad but then seems to interpret those drawings as being of the new property. I don’t believe they were.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7739/17578577633_ef573c1d4a_b.jpg)
Instead, the property he describes seems to be the entire Sebonac Neck region. It should be mentioned that NONE of this information appeared in any of the New York City newspapers at that time and in fact, two weeks later on November 1st, 1906 New York papers mentioned CBM still considering multiple sites.
I think what likely happened is that this was around the time (Fall 1906) when the Real Estate Developer, obviously wanting a golf course in the region near the proposed development but having previously rejected Macdonald’s offer near the canal in the heart of the proposed development had recently offered in concept that they’d be willing to sell land up on Sebonac Neck.
I think this is roughly (Sept/Oct 1906) when CBM and Whigham took their first horseback rides on the property of Sebonac Neck.
I’ve seen nothing to date to indicate it was any earlier. Has anyone else?
-
Jeff,
I appreciate the apology.
To respond you your posts in red above. I think you are being unreasonably finicky about what you expect to me put in MY synopsis of CBM's chronology, and that you are trying to insert your spin into my chronology.
For example, regarding the October article, I wrote that "[CBM] and Whigham had been over the property and that Travis had been invited to consult." You try to correct me by noting, "The article also notes that only Whigham has been on property, and others invited." First, that is NOT what the article said. It says what I wrote in MY SYNOPSIS only with different words. So what are you complaining about? I never said anyone else had been on the property other than CBM and Whigham! And neither did the article!
The rest of your comments are just as nitpicky. You seem to want me to include your arguments and interpretations in my chronology.
I told you guys I would make the one change and I will. I'll also consider any other reasonable suggestions, but these don't seem reasonable. Rather than going through each one, I have an idea . . .
If my chronology doesn't work for you, make your own. But don't use mine as a starting point. Do it yourself. Surely, you will bring the same level of finickiness and demand for detail to your work as mine.
-
Mike, again without the proper citations to these articles? Give us a break. How many times do we have to ask for the actual dates and papers?
(If you include the actual dates and papers you might be able to figure out why I think it matters.)
-
Mike
1. Why are you back on this real estate stuff when the developer told us that there was no real estate scheme?
2. I addressed your concerns about my chronology. Are you going to answer my questions about your current position on clearing the property and staking out the rough boundary of the parcel?
3, As for this article, I'd like to see the "cable" on which the article was based. I've read similar articles from the time period and they make me wonder about the byline on this one. Not saying that Whigham didn't author an article or even this article, but I'd like to see the actual Whigham wrote (if he did) instead of a wire story in a Omaha paper from a London Paper cable.
David,
1) For presumably the same reason that Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer, and Bryan Izatt are. It's a real sticking point to date the offer on 120 acres near the canal to December 1905 yet still have Whigham, Macdonald, and Travis all still touting that original plan in spring of 1906.
Either the date of the first offer near the Canal is wrong, which I think you suspect as well, or the land plan was somehow back in play in the spring of 1906.
2) I thought I did that previously and perhaps you missed it. I think in December 1906 when CBM secured the 205 acres the property had not been surveyed, cleared, or staked.
Do you recall my post where I posited that because the 450 acres had never been sub-divided previously, I believe the agreement as signed by the developer and CBM in December 1906 was simply as general as possible, probably saying something like "200 acres running for two miles and 4 acres wide along the eastern portion of Sebonac Neck from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club northwest border out to the Peconic Bay", much like CBM described in the December 1906 articles.
After all, why survey and stake out the property if you only have to do it again later?
Why clear hundreds of acres of waist-high brambles and swamp if you're not sure you're going to own it? Why go through that expense on uncertain properties?
CBM tells us he and Whigham rode around it a few times to check out landforms and soils and found a few places for some of their ideal holes. They brought a few friends out that fall who agreed with them.
Bingo, let's execute an option on the property.
The rest came after.
3) I have more articles from spring of 1906 indicating the real estate option was still in play. I'd rather we stick to this discussion and leave the real estate piece tabled unless directly related to timetables as with the supposed 1905 date for the Canal offer, thanks.
Also, thanks for your timeline. I've been busy and haven't had much chance to respond to any details but it does provide a framework for identifying where we agree and where we don't.
I would also appreciate you considering that those pages in "Scotland's Gift" are not an exact chronology and I'm not sure how you think I took any of it out of context or that my interpretation isn't a valid one because some others here also agree with my read of it.
-
Mike, again without the proper citations to these articles? Give us a break. How many times do we have to ask for the actual dates and papers?
(If you include the actual dates and papers you might be able to figure out why I think it matters.)
David,
The two bottom articles are from the October 15, 1906 "Boston Globe", with part 2 first and the headline and intro following.
I found/copied the other two from a previous thread but will see what I can determine regarding their source(s).
-
1) For presumably the same reason that Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer, and Bryan Izatt are. It's a real sticking point to date the offer on 120 acres near the canal to December 1905 yet still have Whigham, Macdonald, and Travis all still touting that original plan in spring of 1906.
It is not a "sticking point" if the March articles are reciting old information, same as the December articles. Notice that, except for the 1904 letter, none of your sources ever have CBM stating that the real estate component was still in place. He certainly didn't mention it his letter to Travis, or his similar letter to Emmett.
Either the date of the first offer near the Canal is wrong, which I think you suspect as well, or the land plan was somehow back in play in the spring of 1906.
As for the date of the attempted Canal purchase, I'm not 100% confident we have that nailed down yet, but I think the best evidence we have thus far links it to the developer's purchase.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume it was in June, after CBM returned. Would you acknowledge, then, that by June the "real estate component" (if it ever existed) was dead?
2) I thought I did that previously and perhaps you missed it. I think in December 1906 when CBM secured the 205 acres the property had not been surveyed, cleared, or staked.
That isn't what I asked. What I asked was:
1. When do you think the property was cleared?
2. When do you think they first staked out the borders, if even roughly?
After all, why survey and stake out the property if you only have to do it again later?
Is this a serious question? You don't think the two sides wanted some idea of the subject property before they agreed to a deal?
Why clear hundreds of acres of waist-high brambles and swamp if you're not sure you're going to own it? Why go through that expense on uncertain properties?
I never said they cleared it. Your assumption that they needed to clear it to mark off the rough boundaries of the property is erroneous.
CBM tells us he and Whigham rode around it a few times to check out landforms and soils and found a few places for some of their ideal holes. They brought a few friends out that fall who agreed with them.
Bingo, let's execute an option on the property.
Except that is not what CBM told us.
3) I have more articles from spring of 1906 indicating the real estate option was still in play. I'd rather we stick to this discussion and leave the real estate piece tabled unless directly related to timetables as with the supposed 1905 date for the Canal offer, thanks.
All of which seem to be reciting old information.
Also, thanks for your timeline. I've been busy and haven't had much chance to respond to any details but it does provide a framework for identifying where we agree and where we don't.
It is CBM's chronology, I just put in some dates. If you start changing the order of things you are arguing with him, not me.
I would also appreciate you considering that those pages in "Scotland's Gift" are not an exact chronology and I'm not sure how you think I took any of it out of context . . .
You took phrases out of context when you rearranged them in an order that no longer made sense. For example when you moved the discussion of the Eden away from the section where it says CBM would be studying the contours to find places for his ideal holes.
. . . or that my interpretation isn't a valid one because some others here also agree with my read of it.
I don't think I said it was not "valid." I said it made no sense. In my opinion it makes no sense to ignore the order in which CBM presented the material, and it makes no sense to split up portions that obviously go together. See the example immediately above where you separate CBM's description of searching for the holes he had in mind from from the description of these very holes!
You just can't rearrange it to your liking. It has to make sense. You have to look at in the context CBM presented it, and a large part of that is the order in which he portrayed the events as having happened.
-
For what it's worth, while I'm still sourcing the article, this one from March 20th, 1906 mentions "Villas" as well.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7733/18205542622_a974f92bb7_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8783/17586634824_f9a8279a4a_b.jpg)
Gotta run to dinner...will respond tomorrow
-
To continue the timeline, by September 10, 1907, all the greens were built by the committee in charge. We have since learned that most needed to be rebuilt later due to soil and agronomic issues.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8757/18023183309_7de9983e9d_b.jpg)
-
Mike there is a difference between rebuilding and reseeding.
-
Mike there is a difference between rebuilding and reseeding.
David,
Agreed but once you have to plough it up and change the composition of the soil you're essentially rebuilding, no?
-
I have read that they reseeded. I have not read that they rebuilt. If you want to make that case feel free but I don't think you should just assume.
-
No assumption...Bahto ' s book. No biggie...let's move on.
-
I'll take a look that section Bahto's book later.
_______________________________________________
I've re-read your post about the October 1916 Globe article. Your attempts to undermine key points in the article are more than a little stretched.
For example, the article mentioned that maps with elevations had been created and sent to cbm's advisors overseas. You would have us believe that this means that cbm was actually just sending maps of the overseas golf holes back to the overseas advisers. It's funny to think of cbm sending Jon Low maps and explanations of the Road Hole, but it is not very plausible. You also would have us believe that these advisers weren't really advising about the course but were rather just sending cbm photos and such, but you ignore that McDonald's 1912 letter also said that they were providing him with "suggestions." You can pretend that "suggestions" couldn't possibly include suggestions about the course, but I don't think that is very plausible interpretation.
The fact remains that this article indicates that maps were made of the golf course property and that these maps were sent to advisors overseas. You can disbelieve it if you choose, but your explanations for trying to rewrite the article to your choosing fall flat.
There is a pattern here. When evidence come up which contradicts your story, you try to change the evidence and stick with your story. That is what you are doing here, and what you have tried to do with the cbm's chronology, and what you have tried to do with the developer's statement about the restriction on the property, and what you have tried to do elsewhere as well. It should be the other way around. The story should follow the evidence.
-
David,
I agree but not when we know the evidence is faulty or directly conflicts with other known factual information.
In waist high brambles on a property only navigable on horseback they had no legal claim to, there is no way to get an accurate topo needed for the level of specificity (2 to 3 foot levels) CBM was looking for without first clearing the property. Who was going to pay for that without a deal in place?
What is actually accurate in that article otherwise other than them considering all of Sebonac Neck at the time?
-
There is no conflict. You are making one up.
And you are making up the requirement/need for a 2-3 foot topo at this point. That's not what the article said, it is your artifial requirement.
-
Speaking of mapping, I am still waiting for an answer to a a couple of simple questions:
1. When do you think the property was cleared?
2. When do you think they first staked out the borders, if even roughly?
-
David,
I agree but not when we know the evidence is faulty or directly conflicts with other known factual information.
In waist high brambles on a property only navigable on horseback they had no legal claim to, there is no way to get an accurate topo needed for the level of specificity (2 to 3 foot levels) CBM was looking for without first clearing the property.
Mike,
Bryan Izatt presented a 1904 map overlay showing roads running all through the property in 1904, two years prior to CBM staking the property.
Didn't you see his post ?
Who was going to pay for that without a deal in place?
What is actually accurate in that article otherwise other than them considering all of Sebonac Neck at the time?
-
Pat,
Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27.
Jeff,
Let's not also forget the land owned by the SI entity.
It could be that the 2 acres was owned by another entity controlled by the parent company.
It's not unusual for parcels of real estate to be owned by separate entities controlled by the parent company.
Wasn't NGLA structured that way ?
I'll try to find out more when the opportunity arises
Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened.
It's not unusual to have separate entities of a parent company own individual parcels.
Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.
The original entrance to the current clubhouse was an extension of White's Lane.
The gate remains intact today.
The road from White's Lane ran down the middle of the course starting by the 13th green and running parallel to holes 14, 15, 16 & 17.
Subsequently a new entrance was created near the end of Sebonac Inlet Rd
-
Speaking of mapping, I am still waiting for an answer to a a couple of simple questions:
1. When do you think the property was cleared?
2. When do you think they first staked out the borders, if even roughly?
David,
For what possible purpose would CBM send topo maps of 10 foot intervals to his overseas friends if they were trying to find ways to plot the topos of their agreed upon ideal holes atop them? They would have had to get much more discrete for golf architecture or template replication purposes but based on multiple descriptions, including CBM's, that would have required clearing 200 acres of waist high brambles only navigable on horseback.
1) I think the property was cleared beginning at the time Macdonald felt confident in his ability to use that land for his course so between Oct 06 to Dec 06 and certainly right after inking the papers in Dec. In fact, I think it would have been advantageous to do that work over the winter for multiple reasons including avoiding the insect infestation that was mentioned in the summer/fall months which thrive in our more humid summer/early fall seasons here in the northeast.
2) Since the land of Sebonac Neck had never been subdivided into parcels for real estate, I think all involved party's would have felt it prudent to do this work only one time, after the course had been routed, surveyed, and detailed planned, so roughly late April 1906. Anything prior given those realities would have been a silly waste of time and money given their mutual agreement to see an ideal course located near their planned real estate development.
-
Everyone needs to take a breath of healing fresh air...
Those Shinnecock Hills were chocked full of potential for golf.. take a look! More views as provided by William Merritt Chase, 10 years before CBM got seriously into their development.
I think I see an Alps Hole!
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/31c0b969-6978-4eea-b3be-64bf7f4aa156_zpsiotighlv.jpg)
An interesting valley or downgrade/upgrade setting for hole locations or traversing, what do you think? Love the dunes!
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/f63a0da0-ecdf-4789-9a3e-da3eb4e64456_zpsrcno3lk4.jpg)
A Cape Hole or potential 1-shotter here, might have to drag a bit…
(http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8BX2B2/$File/William-Merritt-Chase-Shinnecock-Hills-from-Canoe-Place-Long-Island.JPG)
Could be a nice Clubhouse over there… closer to the bluff, lets go see!
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/776eb4ac-3930-48db-a5a7-2d582e730f28_zpszqfogyi7.jpg)
-
Steve,
Beautiful paintings, thanks for sharing.
Certainly certain areas of the Hills were previously cleared and probably even farmed. But the land of Sebonac Neck was described contemporaneously and in anecdotal recollections by Walter Travis, CB Macdonald, and others as hopelessly overgrown and un-navigable except on horseback by multiple sources before Macdonald built his course there. The Development company considered it essentially worthless for either development or farming
Why do you think that was?
-
Thanks Steve. The art colony was pretty close to the property.
Mike one of the descriptions mentioned that there were meadows on the parcel, so it wasn't all bramble.
______________________________________________________________________________________
There is nothing in the Globe article about 10 foot interval topo maps, and you just made up the bit about CBM needing 2 ft. topo maps. You are dealing with your own narrative, not the facts. Same for your insistence that the plot must have been cleared before they could do anything. It isn't real. It doesn't come from the record. You made it up. Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it fact.
As for your answers to my questions:
1) You think they began to clear the property as early as October. You also state that at this point they had neither marked off or chosen the definite parcel.
So how did they know what to clear if they hadn't even marked off the parcel?
What about the pesky little fact that you have them out there developing the property when they did not yet own the land?
Honestly Mike, I assumed your thoughts on the clearing would have something to do with the factual record, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything except with picking a date you think fits with your theory.
2. You don't think they had even roughly staked off the land before April 1907 (you wrote 1906 but this must be a typo.)
Again, how did they know what to clear, if they hadn't even roughly staked out the property? And how did they know if they were even anywhere near the edges of the 200 acres?
How much money do you think it would have taken to put a few stakes in the ground marking off the approximate land CBM wanted?
You seem to be going to extreme lengths to avoid even the most simple and obvious concessions. The idea that they didn't even mark off the property to clear it defies common sense. So does the idea that they have agreed to an option for the purchase of real property without both sides having identified and marked off the land (this is especially so considering that they had an acreage in mind, and much of the border was so ill-defined.)
-
8) Mike,
I think some of those descriptions are a bit of hyperbole. Also, i don't trust any real estate related descriptions... sellers promote, buyers negate/discount. I'm considering three sites for my course... really?
Chase's depictions of the Shinnecock Hills have to be seriously considered, which why i posted some earlier in the thread. (Reply #689)
Certainly the Bayberry Land estate developed by Sabin on the west flank of NGLA was well named, but seriously you're talking low height woody plants and bushes growing in a sandy dune ecosystem. We're not talking deep in the amazon jungle, where eons of plant matter has built up the organic content of the forest floor... and moisture abounds to promote growth if the sun can peak through.
Why did NGLA have so much in the way of turf issues?
-
David,
It appears we're not so far off re how much time the routing and designing took. As to exactly when the land was staked and cleared I think I'll leave that to you and Mike to debate to death.
If I continue to confuse you about "winnowing" let me try again to clarify.
CBM went overseas to study the great courses. He claims to have seen "thousands" of holes (which seems a little overblown to me) from which he selected those he felt were ideal in total or for some underlying principle. He had created notes, plans, maps etc of the ideal templates that he brought back with him in June 1906. Some of this apparently required further drawing or mapping. From all this material and from comment on it from others he must have distilled it down, for I recall reading somewhere that he had in the area of 35 templates, in full or part. That process must have taken some time.
By Dec 1906 he had winnowed his material down to his 18 ideal holes that got published in Outing magazine. That article got included in the letters calling in the $1000 pledges. Winnowing his studies down to 18 ideal holes and writing the article must have taken time.
A lot of the ideal 18 made it into the design for NGLA. Some did not, and was replaced by other ideal concepts or his own original designs. The winnowing down of the ideal 18 as to what would fit on the real life property must have taken some time.
Coming up with his original designs and fitting them into the routing must have taken some time.
I hope that clarifies. These are not things that need proving, rather they are my perceptions of how the process must have worked. He started with a lot of research material on ideal holes and through some process narrowed it down to a precious few and applied them to the ground available on Sebonac Neck.
-
As for the availability of land near todays 9th green/10th tee I defer to you, but my point vis a vis the Shinnecock Inn was that it allowed a place for visitors to arrive, meet and greet and sleep and eat some hash. Every partially "ideal" course in the UK at the turn of the last century had a "Shinnecock Inn" to support the local golf course.
Since the SI was a "resort hotel" in the summer months, with a limited amount of rooms, how could it accommodate members and guests at NGLA when it was full of vacationing guests ?
After the fire, there was nothing there, and CMB did NOT want to be in the hash and beds business, so he put his club in the middle of the (non-golfable) doughnut.
What about the land in the doughnut hole makes it non-golfable ?
How many times have you played NGLA ?
At least IMHO.
Hope all is well.
Rich
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, Pat, but I've been tied up at the annual ICOM (International Community of Morons) convention in Switzerland for the past few days. We have missed you and hope you are OK. Sepp Blatter has been asking after you, and praising you for all the great work you have done as a moronic advisor to FIFA over the past two decades.
We actually held a rump session yesterday debating as to how I might answer your superbly moronic questions above, and it was unanimously agreed that you should answer the questions yourself, as you probably think you have all the answers, reflecting the gold standard of Moronism.
All the best
Rich
-
Sven,
Re the 1.5 acre lots, yes these were rich and famous people for whom a 1.5 acre property worth $300 was a drop in the bucket. Yet, Macdonald raised the possibility in his solicitation. Why would he do that if he didn't think it might persuade some of the founders? Given the number of press stories and circular letters, it certainly seemed that Macdonald was promoting the ideal course in a very public way. Why was he doing that? He only needed 70 well heeled golfers to make a go of it.
Maybe he felt that some of the 70 were less enthusiastic golfers and really were looking for an investment angle. Or, maybe not all 70 were part of the super-elite and were less wealthy?
Or, maybe it was because he was looking to find a way to make the location more palatable. It was a 2.5 to 3 hour journey each way either by train or car. Clearly nobody at the beginning was going to do that on a day trip, especially during the work week. For weekends he'd have the Inn for people to stay overnight and enjoy the weekend in the country and the golf. Maybe the lots could have been a way to make it more attractive for those who wanted a weekend golf retreat in the Hills but didn't want to use the Inn.
In the end, whether we think that cheap 1.5 acre lots were of no import to the wealthy clientele, the fact is that Macdonald put the idea out there. A century later I think it is silly of us to question his logic in doing so.
-
Rich,
Thanks for a good chuckle so early in the morning. ;D ;D ;D on the Rhicelin scale of responses.
-
Bryan, I now understand better what you mean by winnowing down, but I don't necessarily agree with your description regarding either the ideal holes or the holes at NGLA.
1. CBM's Ideal Holes. It is not as if CBM wasn't already familiar with many of the ideal holes. He had been playing them and discussing them for years. Remember the influence that the Great Hole debate at the beginning of the Century had over CBM's thinking, and remember also that he was already very familiar with many of the holes from his extensive experience prior to 1906.
Also, surely he was already forming and solidifying his list of which of the holes were his favorites while he was seeing them, and deciding which to document. And so when he returned he must have had some ideas on what holes he viewed as best. For example, when CBM returned in June 1906 he had already decided to include the Biarritz.
Imagine you played a bunch of courses on a trip, many of which you had been discussing and playing for years, and you even took notes and created diagrams, etc. Would you need months to decide which you liked best, or would you know when you got back?
Also, according to CBM holes on his list of 18 weren't even necessarily superior to others he had in mind: "I have notes of many holes equally as good as a numtier of the above, but this list will convey to the mind of the reader a fair idea of what I have gleaned during the last few months as constituting a perfect length of hole consistent with variety." So I am not sure it is a winnowing down so much as a representative sample.
2. NGLA. By CBM's description it sounds as if he found his key holes fairly early on. So we are really talking about his hybrids and his originals.
A lot of the ideal 18 made it into the design for NGLA. Some did not, and was replaced by other ideal concepts or his own original designs. The winnowing down of the ideal 18 as to what would fit on the real life property must have taken some time.
Coming up with his original designs and fitting them into the routing must have taken some time.
I think in envision this a little differently. Rather than coming up with the exact holes he wanted to use then trying to fit them on the property, I gather that, after placing his key holes, he found features that would with any of his many of his concepts. You seem to have it as the concept was the driving force, whereas I think that after placing the key holes, it was the land that was the driving force and he found concepts which would work with the interesting feature on the land. So his broad knowledge of great holes wasn't something he needed to winnow down before the design process, it was something that helped him make the design process more efficient.
It is a subtle difference but an important one. Where you suggest he had to "com[e] up with his original designs and fit them into the routing," I think he used his broad knowledge to find new and original holes (and hybrids) on the property.
______________________________
Looking at the relief map and the blueprint it is interesting to imagine how it might have happened. I don't think I ever understood why the Channel Hole is a Channel hole until I studied the blueprint.
-
Patrick,
Since you are a serial failure on this point, let me say it again.
NGLA owned enough land south of the 9th green for a clubhouse.
The site south of the 9th green had access by the same unimproved road that the Shinnecock Inn did.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled blather.
Patrick, according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green.
See the yellow outline in first aerial below.
The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.
That's nice Bryan, but, tell us, how could you get from the road, the North road to that property without having to traverse someone else's property ?
I guess you don't read the second paragraph before tearing in to the first paragraph.
According to your blueprint he also owned parts of the second green and second tee/hole at Shinnecock
It's not my blueprint. It's Macdonald's.
As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below) The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.
In the past, you argued that there were no access roads for the trucks/wagons, so now you've changed your mind and you're now claiming that there were access roads ? ? ?
Funny how you contradict yourself depending upon the situation.
I first posted this some time ago.
I don't put much faith in your overlay.
Now, there's a surprise. ;D Is it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived dogma?
If anything it would counter everything that Mike is claiming, for if there were roads throughout the property, as you illustrate, the land must have been cleared for those roads, making access to the property quite easy.
Why have to ride horses when you had roads you could walk on ?
Silly bluster.
What's your next hair brained theory ?
In addition, why would CBM create a golf course that required the removal and relocation of roads, certainly an expensive task
Which dirt road was he going to have to remove or relocate? Certainly not the one that was an extension of Whites Lane. Map reading is not a skill of yours, I guess.
But, I'm still waiting for that expert on NGLA, Rich Goodale, to tell us why the land where the clubhouse currently sits, is unfit for golf.
I see Rich has already answered you.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8894/17688538505_0e21f1945b_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
-
Or, maybe not all 70 were part of the super-elite and were less wealthy?
Here is a list of the original founders from CBM's 1912 Statement. Looks like the many of them were super rich and super-elite:
ATKINSON, H. M.
BACON, DANIEL
BACON, ROBERT
BAXTER, GEORGE W.
BLAIR, WATSON F.
BOWERS, JOHN M.
BROUGHTON, URBAN H.
BYERS, E. M.
CHAUNCEY, DANIEL
CLARK, STEPHEN C.
COOLIDGE, T. JEFFERSON, Jr.
DEERING, CHARLES
DEERING, JAMES
DOUGLAS, FINDLAY S.
DUNNE, F. P.
EMMET, DEVEREUX
FRICK, HENRY C.
GARY, ELBERT H.
GRANT, HUGH J. (deceased)
GRACE, JOSEPH P.
GRIER, JOHN P.
HARDING, J. HORACE
HARRIMAN, J. BORDEN
HARRIMAN, HERBERT M.
HOLLINS, H. B.
HUNT, JARVIS
HUNT, LEIGH
KELLEY, WILLIAM V.
J ROBERT BAGE
KNAPP, JOSEPH P.
LAYNG, F. S. (deceased)
LEE, J. BOWERS
LINCOLN, ROBERT T.
MACDONALD, CHARLES BLAIR
MACKAY, CLARENCE H.
MCROBERTS, SAMUEL
MANNING, J. J.
MOORE, JAMES HOBART
MOORE, WILLIAM H.
MOTT, J. L. B.
NICOLL, DELANCEY
NORRIS, ALFRED L.
O'BRIEN, MORGAN J.
PAGE, HOWARD
PARRISH, J. C.
PUTNAM, W. A.
RAINEY, ROY A.
REAM, NORMAN B.
RUTHERFURD, WLNTHROP
RYERSON, ARTHUR
RYERSON, EDWARD L.
SCHOONMAKER, S. L.
SHAW, QUINCY A.
SLOANE, W. D.
STICKNEY, CHARLES D.
STILLMAN, JAMES A.
TAYLOR, JAMES L.
THOMAS, R. H.
THOMAS, WASHINGTON B.
THOMPSON, ROBERT M.
TOSCANI, T. (deceased)
TwoMBLY, H. McK. (deceased)
VANDERBILT, W. K., Jr.
WATSON, C. F.
WATSON, ROBERT C.
WHIGHAM, H. J.
WHITNEY, H. PAYNE
WILLIAMS, R. H.
YOAKUM, B. F.
YOUNG, RICHARD H. (deceased)
Regardless of why CBM chose to include his 'for instance' in the 1904 solicitation letter, if the developer is to be believed, then there was no possibility of a real estate component at NGLA.
-
David,
I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. These are nuances we'll probably never know the answer to. I guess my underlying point is that the process took time and the result is a design that is widely regarded as brilliant and that has withstood the test of time.
-
Agreed.
-
Re the 1.5 acre lots, my take is that CBM threw it out there as a possible incentive to the founders; it was reported for a couple of years after; but in the end it didn't happen. You and Mike can keep at trying to nail jelly to the wall if you like.
The more interesting questions to me are: why did he feel the need to propose a trivial possible incentive to such a wealthy clientele; and, why was he promoting the project so heavily through the media when he only needed 70 wealthy men to step up to set up a private club?
-
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, Pat, but I've been tied up at the annual ICOM (International Community of Morons) convention in Switzerland for the past few days. We have missed you and hope you are OK. Sepp Blatter has been asking after you, and praising you for all the great work you have done as a moronic advisor to FIFA over the past two decades.
We actually held a rump session yesterday debating as to how I might answer your superbly moronic questions above, and it was unanimously agreed that you should answer the questions yourself, as you probably think you have all the answers, reflecting the gold standard of Moronism.
All the best
Rich
Alright, I am now in favour of the like button :D I am sure the few drams it took to whistle out this post was a most enjoyable 20 minutes for Rihc.
Ciao
-
Jeff,
Rt 27 didn't exist until the late 1920's so it's hard to say that the triangle separated NGLA from it in 1906-07. If you look at the map a few posts above, the 1904 roads are superimposed on the current aerial. A yellow unimproved road runs and splits between the SI and NGLA and possibly runs through part of the triangle. The road, such as it was was probably owned by the Realty Co. Maybe it had been dedicated to the county or maybe not.
The Realty Co was building the Inn and they sold CBM the land he wanted for NGLA. We don't know if they subdivided out the SI property as it is today and left themselves the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the their larger holding or how or when they created the triangle property.
If the triangle was sitting unused, it had lots of company. Sales of lots in the Shinnecock Hills was slow for years.
Patrick's anonymous source appears to be correct that CBM did not buy the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the original deal. At the time of the original deal in late '06 - early '07 obviously CBM didn't think he needed it nor that it inhibited the development of NGLA or the Shinnecock Inn nor that it interfered with the existing road (such as they was) structure.
Pat,
Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27. Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened. Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.
-
Articles in March 1906 said that Macdonald went abroad because some holes that had previously been ideal had changed playing characteristics due to the Haskell Ball and Macdonald was doing an update. After his trip he would confer with experts here and abroad to gain unanimity on which were the best holes and concepts to try to reproduce.
Along with the founders, weren't there to be some 200 associate members? To suggest that they didn't need housing because they were wealthy doesn't negate the fact that they were going to drive several hours there and back , there were only a total of 30 rooms being buit for lodging in the area, and it certainly doesn't negate the fact that it was Macdonald ' s well publicized plan for years, including throughout 1906. HJ Whigham went as far as calling it ingenious that same year.
Steve,
I'm only going by descriptions from Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, and contemporaneous news accounts regarding the state of the property prior to Macdonald purchasing it. Even the real estate company thought it worthless for building lots from their first board report.
The paintings, by contrast, look lovely and eminently desirable, idyllic pasture land if you will. Do you think they were all exaggerating the condition of hundreds of acres? Why would they do that, especially since Macdonald ' s account was over 20 years later? What would be the point?
Some of the early photos of NGLA show what the land was like off the golf course that hadn't been cleared. I frankly don't recall it looking anything like those paintings, do you?
-
Of course, anyone who wants to believe that they were out there surveying and clearing property in the spring and summer of 1906 on land they had no legal claim to until December of that year is welcome to do so. It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906. But hey...perhaps they wanted to spend a lot of time and money upfront on land they might not be able to purchase. After all, they had only been shot down one time prior.
The rest of the timeline feels right to me as well with construction commencing in May 1907 after the routing was established and the greens being built first, and completed in September of that year. If they started back in the summer of 1906 one has to fairly wonder what they were doing all that time?
In any case, I've spent more than enough time on this and unless someone unearths new information such as the original property agreements I'm very satisfied that I have a much better understanding of the genesis of NGLA.
I'm sure we're becoming redundant but at least now we all know why I think the design process took about 6 months, why David thinks it took closer to a year and why Patrick thinks it took 5 minutes. ;)
Thanks for everyone's contributions.
-
Patrick,
Since you are a serial failure on this point, let me say it again.
NGLA owned enough land south of the 9th green for a clubhouse.
Doubtful.
And if they did, they couldn't access that land
The site south of the 9th green had access by the same unimproved road that the Shinnecock Inn did.[/size]]/color]
Baloney, that road was the property of the SI and the company that owned the SI.
Nice try[/size]
And now, back to your regularly scheduled blather.
Patrick, according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green.
See the yellow outline in first aerial below.
The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.
That's nice Bryan, but, tell us, how could you get from the road, the North road to that property without having to traverse someone else's property ?
I guess you don't read the second paragraph before tearing in to the first paragraph.
According to your blueprint he also owned parts of the second green and second tee/hole at Shinnecock
It's not my blueprint. It's Macdonald's.
Then it's flawed as are the conclusions you've based upon that blueprint.
As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below) The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.
In the past, you argued that there were no access roads for the trucks/wagons, so now you've changed your mind and you're now claiming that there were access roads ? ? ?
Funny how you contradict yourself depending upon the situation.
I first posted this some time ago.
I don't care when you posted it, you're contradicting yourself.
You can't argue, as you have, that there were no roads, and subsequently argue that there was a network of roads, some right through the property, which totally undermines Mike Cirba's argument.
Hey Mike, how do you suppose the people in the portrait that Steve Lang presented go to the property ? Parachute ?
I don't put much faith in your overlay.
Now, there's a surprise. ;D Is it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived dogma?
NO, because it's flawed, like almost every one of your theories.
Do I need to remind you about the topography, sunrise and sunset and White's Lane.
And now your latest theory which is based upon a flawed blueprint
Or is it now your contention that the company selling CBM the 205 acres sold him land they didn't own, land that was owned by SHGC ?
If anything it would counter everything that Mike is claiming, for if there were roads throughout the property, as you illustrate, the land must have been cleared for those roads, making access to the property quite easy.
Why have to ride horses when you had roads you could walk on ?
Silly bluster.
Are you stupid, it's based upon the road map that YOU presented.
You can't have it both wayss
What's your next hair brained theory ?
In addition, why would CBM create a golf course that required the removal and relocation of roads, certainly an expensive task
Which dirt road was he going to have to remove or relocate? Certainly not the one that was an extension of Whites Lane. Map reading is not a skill of yours, I guess.
Take a look at the 5th, 7th and 11th holes.
In case you can't locate them have someone point them out to you
But, I'm still waiting for that expert on NGLA, Rich Goodale, to tell us why the land where the clubhouse currently sits, is unfit for golf.
I see Rich has already answered you.
The FACT is that Rich couldn't answer me,, so he chose to be cute.
Rich's knowledge of NGLA is akin to yours.
So, tell us Rich, why was the land that that clubhouse now sits upon, "UNGOLFABLE" ? ? ?
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8894/17688538505_0e21f1945b_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
-
The more interesting questions to me are: why did he feel the need to propose a trivial possible incentive to such a wealthy clientele; and, why was he promoting the project so heavily through the media when he only needed 70 wealthy men to step up to set up a private club?
Bryan:
Was CBM promoting, or was this a case of a golf mad press taking it on themselves to cover the project As I mentioned earlier, I don't think CBM was using the press to recruit guys like Frick, Vanderbilt and Harriman, guys he probably saw once a week over at GCGC.
Sven
-
Along with the founders, weren't there to be some 200 associate members?
There were going to be 200 associate members, and as you should know the funds generated by their signing on was going to be used for the clubhouse, when built.
Sven
-
Jeff,
Rt 27 didn't exist until the late 1920's so it's hard to say that the triangle separated NGLA from it in 1906-07. If you look at the map a few posts above, the 1904 roads are superimposed on the current aerial. A yellow unimproved road runs and splits between the SI and NGLA and possibly runs through part of the triangle. The road, such as it was was probably owned by the Realty Co. Maybe it had been dedicated to the county or maybe not.
So now you agree with me that the road was owned by the real estate company, and therefore not available to CBM for his clubhouse.
The Realty Co was building the Inn and they sold CBM the land he wanted for NGLA. We don't know if they subdivided out the SI property as it is today and left themselves the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the their larger holding or how or when they created the triangle property.
But, it's clear that CBM didn't own that parcel nor did he own the parcel that constituted the SI, ergo he had NO access to the course from the South side.
If the triangle was sitting unused, it had lots of company. Sales of lots in the Shinnecock Hills was slow for years.
Patrick's anonymous source appears to be correct that CBM did not buy the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the original deal.
Does that surprise you ?
So, I'm right again, and you were wrong ................. again.
At the time of the original deal in late '06 - early '07 obviously CBM didn't think he needed it nor that it inhibited the development of NGLA or the Shinnecock Inn nor that it interfered with the existing road (such as they was) structure.
Pat,
Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27.
My anonymous source is well informed on all things NGLA.
What we don't know is: had the SI not burned down, what plans did they have for that parcel of property.
Another facility ? housing for staff ? a garage ? parking lot ? pool ? tennis courts ? A residence ?
CBM was land locked at the south end of the property.
Ergo, without purchasing more land, he couldn't build his clubhouse "near" the 9th green.
Nor would he want to given his relationship with Shinnecock, the obvious benefits of siting the clubhouse on the bluff and that fact that he left a significant doughnut hole on land perfect for golf
Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened.
Here's the problem I have with you, your vision is myopic because you won't take your focus off of your goal of disproving my premise..
Obviously they had a purpose for that parcel of land.
The SI was brand new, so their plans for the SI were in the formative stages.
I listed some viable alternatives regarding the use of the land
But, the fact remains, that they did NOT sell the land to CBM and as such, he was landlocked at the south end.
Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.
I'm sure that there was movement in the roadways as the area developed.
But, let me ask you this.
WHY would the burning down of the SI cause CBM to relocate his clubhouse ? ? ?
There's NO "cause and effect"
The ultimate location of his clubhouse had NOTHING to do with the SI.
Pretend for a second that the SI never burned down.
Do you really think he would have sited his clubhouse next to it ?
Not in a million years.
He always intended to site his clubhouse exactly where it is today.
-
Mike. CBM told us why they didn't need housing. 1) There was an Inn. 2) Building lots were available. Both were in the giant adjacent development.
Of course, anyone who wants to believe that they were out there surveying and clearing property in the spring and summer of 1906 on land they had no legal claim to until December of that year is welcome to do so.
Again with the ambiguous straw man. You are the only one who thinks they were clearing the land before they owned it. I assume they didn't clear it until they took possession in the spring of 1907. They didn't own the property until spring. Again . . .
1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?
2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?
It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906.
Another straw man. By CBM's account they were a long ways into deciding on which holes to feature before the option was obtained.
-
Jeff,
Rt 27 didn't exist until the late 1920's so it's hard to say that the triangle separated NGLA from it in 1906-07. If you look at the map a few posts above, the 1904 roads are superimposed on the current aerial. A yellow unimproved road runs and splits between the SI and NGLA and possibly runs through part of the triangle. The road, such as it was was probably owned by the Realty Co. Maybe it had been dedicated to the county or maybe not.
The Realty Co was building the Inn and they sold CBM the land he wanted for NGLA. We don't know if they subdivided out the SI property as it is today and left themselves the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the their larger holding or how or when they created the triangle property.
If the triangle was sitting unused, it had lots of company. Sales of lots in the Shinnecock Hills was slow for years.
Patrick's anonymous source appears to be correct that CBM did not buy the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the original deal. At the time of the original deal in late '06 - early '07 obviously CBM didn't think he needed it nor that it inhibited the development of NGLA or the Shinnecock Inn nor that it interfered with the existing road (such as they was) structure.
Pat,
Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27. Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened. Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.
Bryan,
Its a long thread, but I am sure I read somewhere that SHPB agreed to improve the road from the train station to the Inn specifically for them. If it extended beyond the Inn, it probably wasn't improved.
I agree that the Rt 27 wasn't built until later, and see lots of roadway realignments in the various maps over the years. I merely guessed that the regular boundary behind 9 was meant to tie to the road (CBM was smart, and as Pat says, no one smart would land lock themselves) but at some point things changed. If he was land locked when the Inn burnt down, there is a slight possibility that it was a factor in moving the clubhouse location.
-
Mike. CBM told us why they didn't need housing. 1) There was an Inn. 2) Building lots were available. Both were in the giant adjacent development.
Of course, anyone who wants to believe that they were out there surveying and clearing property in the spring and summer of 1906 on land they had no legal claim to until December of that year is welcome to do so.
Again with the ambiguous straw man. You are the only one who thinks they were clearing the land before they owned it. I assume they didn't clear it until they took possession in the spring of 1907. They didn't own the property until spring. Again . . .
1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?
2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?
It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906.
Another straw man. By CBM's account they were a long ways into deciding on which holes to feature before the option was obtained.
I would surmise that the need to leave Founders land was part of that legally binding solicitation letter. Which is why he mentioned it in 1912. The housing was a non binding suggestion, echoed by Whigham as late as March 1906.
I basically believe that the idea of housing died either:
About July, when CBM first expressed interest to SHPB in the land. When asked why he wanted 205 acres this time, and he mentions housing opportunities for members, they tell him no.
Or, at least when CBM got into his October negotiations to option and purchase the land if it had escaped their attention earlier.
He may have held on to that residential notion until those points, perhaps surprised that the Realty Co. would put limitations on his proposal.
Of course, he may have just changed his mind, hearing from members throughout the period that they had no need for one acre home sites.
-
David,
In waist high brambles on a property only navigable on horseback they had no legal claim to, there is no way to get an accurate topo needed for the level of specificity (2 to 3 foot levels) CBM was looking for without first clearing the property. Who was going to pay for that without a deal in place?
Mike,
I will disagree on two counts here.
First, since it was reported that a contour map had been made by October, we have to presume one was made. Not every newspaper reporter could have been a moron getting everything wrong.
Second, I have surveyed through brambles and even mature forest. It involves cutting branches out of the line of sight until you can read the grade on the survey pole. With a 100' grid, it is also sometimes possible to get a spot shot from another point and angle than you originally intended, that doesn't have a blocked view.
It would seem surveying on someone else's land is odd, but CBM had dealt with the Realty Co. before, they know he was serious via the previous offer, and since he apparently paid Raynor (pg 202-3 of Scotlands Gift) himself, it cost them nothing, and if he didn't buy the property, then at least they would have the development info they needed for the next potential buyer or their own development, so it was a no lose situation for them.
-
Jeff,
I appreciate your professional insight, thanks.
All,
I have no idea if this is representative but here's a picture I took of a vintage photo from George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf". That same angle photo from an even earlier pic appears in "Scotland's Gift" but that pic I took is too blurry to post here. Perhaps someone with better skills can do so but to me it looks to be about the same height and thickness of growth.
I think it likely gives some idea of what the land off the golf course looked like as described by Macdonald, Travis, and others reporting later. I'm not sure but given the surveying method Jeff just described, it looks like it would have been a bear to do.
If they did it that summer of 1906, I hope they brought the mosquito nets! ;D
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8868/17610846894_faef18e283_b.jpg)
I recall an old aerial of NGLA floating around here at one point. It would be interesting to review to see how thick the growth was on adjoining land.
-
There is no conflict. You are making one up.
And you are making up the requirement/need for a 2-3 foot topo at this point. That's not what the article said, it is your artifial requirement.
David,
See my previous post. I think CBM would want a 2 foot topo and possible boundary lines to design the course, and hired Raynor first for some general surveying of potential property line, and then he decided (or Raynor the surveyor/engineer convinced him) of the advisability of a contour map. And, I believe this all happened somewhere before October 1906, since it was reported in the newspaper that it had been done.
I am checking a few sources to see how long this might have taken. Certainly brambles and hills take longer to survey than an open farm field.
BTW, I like the idea of gleaming the blueprint for ideas on the design process. I haven't really done that, but my rapid reaction is that if they had the contour map, contour lines would have been added to the plan. Does that make it an early study map, showing the property lines and green sites they had preliminarily selected? Just a thought, probably wrong.
Mike,
As to those pre 1900 paintings - I have seen a lot of sites get overgrown in less than ten years! Someone will probably check the weather in those years to see if higher than normal rainfall suggests more growth. And, we can't dismiss a bit of artistic license on the painter. Obviously, his subjects weren't going to picnic in the overgrown areas......plus, the growth would have likely occurred in valleys, and that painting seems to be taken in the drier hills near the water.
-
Jeff,
George Bahto told me that those hash marks you see on the blueprint running down the center of each hole were elevation numbers. Would that make sense?
-
It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906.
Another straw man. By CBM's account they were a long ways into deciding on which holes to feature before the option was obtained.
David,
I am not so sure.
In the March 1906 letter from London, CBM says no design takes place until all his vaunted committee is consulted.
The October article says he has just sent contour maps to those committee members
The December article says that by now, most of the committed (maybe all) have seen the site.
If we take CBM at his words there, then we can't believe he was well on his way to design before the option. It appears his first step - consulting the committee - didn't occur until after October.
And, as in other posts:
If we read what he says in SG literally (i.e., he found 6 holes.....and not mentioning "placing" said holes until after he mentions the Nov 1906 option) the design work started after the option.
I believe the surveying and contour maps took at least a month, maybe two, and I don't see your timeline accounting for that time.
I find it hard to believe CBM ordered Raynor to do a contour map (certainly no earlier than July) and ignore it, starting to route with out it. I doubt he could complete his routing without a map of boundaries and contours. I do agree with you that he could tentatively set some basic boundaries on earlier maps.
I don't believe he was actively routing before consulting his committee, as it would just piss them off, don't you think? What is the point of touting this committee and then not using it? I will grant with CBM's ego, I can envision him outvoting them by 1 to 7 in a few cases! ;D beyond his reconnaissance rides, and finding a few holes.
Many of your "logical interpretations" don't seem to fit all the known facts from the record, and thus, can reasonably be disagreed with.
-
Jeff:
Two things:
1. Why did CBM need to know the boundaries? It was at his discretion to set them within the land at their disposal. If anything, Raynor was brought in to craft those boundary lines around the course.
2. I see the committee more as a white wash. You go to the investors, tell them that so and so experts will weigh in, giving them the thought that all of the leading minds in golf design will have their say. But is there any doubt that the design was almost all CBM? He already had his list of 18+ holes he wanted to use, and I doubt that the committee did much more than make a few suggestions.
Sven
-
Sven,
I think he started to narrow things down soon after seeing the property and deciding it was what he wanted. I actually am leaning David's way a bit, thinking it was before October when he was reasonably sure he had a workable parcel. (but not as early as David for reasons stated)
He had to fit some practical limitations in his 205 acre maximum, including clubhouse, using his found holes, getting to the bay, etc. With the length more or less set, he had to sort of accept a certain width as a practical matter.
Patrick asked why he wouldn't go over to the hillier Sebonac land, and I think that is the answer. It would take him away from those first holes he wanted, some of which were pretty far east (cape hole). Even with wiggle room, the 205 limit just means he couldn't have it all without leaving more donut holes for the developer, which I doubt was in the plan since he wanted to be at one with nature.
I agree that CBM took it over and the committee probably diminished in importance. That said, after a few years of newspaper articles touting that plan, even up to October, I believe he would start out at least making a show of it. Unless those guys were going to be on site from October to May, they couldn't possibly have been in on all the detail decisions.
Besides, it may only read that they were going to help select the templates, which seems to have occurred in that October to December time frame when they got to the site with CBM. Once CBM got that input, I agree he was probably on his own as project leader.
-
I disagree about the Committee.
News reports in 1907 and 1908 through construction still named the Committee of Macdonald, Emmett, Whigham, and Travis consistently.
In April of 1907 Walter Travis published a detailed article that told about the progress that was being made. In 1914 Travis also claimed "For Posterity" that he was part of the group that selected some of the holes in the field. Also, it's not like CBM had 18 actual golf holes already picked out but instead only tried a handful of reproductions with most of the rest just based on principles and what was suggested by the natural land.
An August 23, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle report talked about the ongoing work as follows;
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8799/17613486434_207904fed1_b.jpg)
-
Here's the November 1914 snippet from Walter Travis in American Golfer, sometime after he had a falling out with both Macdonald and Emmet.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8889/18083428685_bdf6329b32_z.jpg)
And a bit more on conditions encountered and the process from a 1909 article;
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8823/17066991564_e0cf4cf767.jpg)
-
Mike,
They make sense to me, but I can't pinpoint when they might have been made.
I do believe the background of photo you posted is more representative of the brambles CBM faced before clearing than a painting.
Jeff,
George Bahto told me that those hash marks you see on the blueprint running down the center of each hole were elevation numbers. Would that make sense?
KE
-
Mike,
I stand corrected. While the whole committee surely wasn't out there, it does appear the written record has some of them still quite interested in the final design starting in 1907. Wonder why Travis didn't mention HJW in 1914?
Also, for more insight into the construction task, read the last little snippets about draining and filling 4 ft. deep depressions. This was certainly not all a lay of the land design. Also, noted in an article posted last night that the first version of the water green (now 13) was built too low, flooded during construction or soon thereafter, and was soon rebuilt. They had their troubles, which is to be expected with a bunch of amateur engineers/landscapers focusing on golf, new to America. I presume Payne and Raynor helped a lot in this regard.
BTW, I note that "in a general way, the planning of the course preceded clearing." Which, fits the record, no matter whose timeline we use. It also says changes were made along the way......sounds like the consulted Pete Dye or Tom Fazio. ;)
I disagree about the Committee.
News reports in 1907 and 1908 through construction still named the Committee of Macdonald, Emmett, Whigham, and Travis consistently.
In April of 1907 Walter Travis published a detailed article that told about the progress that was being made. In 1914 Travis also claimed "For Posterity" that he was part of the group that selected some of the holes in the field. Also, it's not like CBM had 18 actual golf holes already picked out but instead only tried a handful of reproductions with most of the rest just based on principles and what was suggested by the natural land.
An August 23, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle report talked about the ongoing work as follows;
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8799/17613486434_207904fed1_b.jpg)
-
How many of CBM's ideal holes from his Jan. 1907 article are on the ground at NGLA?
He drove the design.
Sven
-
I disagree about the Committee.
News reports in 1907 and 1908 through construction still named the Committee of Macdonald, Emmett, Whigham, and Travis consistently.
In April of 1907 Walter Travis published a detailed article that told about the progress that was being made. In 1914 Travis also claimed "For Posterity" that he was part of the group that selected some of the holes in the field. Also, it's not like CBM had 18 actual golf holes already picked out but instead only tried a handful of reproductions with most of the rest just based on principles and what was suggested by the natural land.
An August 23, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle report talked about the ongoing work as follows;
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8799/17613486434_207904fed1_b.jpg)
Ironic that you state the articles consistently noted the big four, yet Emmet appears only as a founder in the article you included.
-
I have no idea if this is representative but here's a picture I took of a vintage photo from George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf".
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8868/17610846894_faef18e283_b.jpg)
Is there any date on this photo in EoG?
Sven
-
Stop the presses. Hold the comments. Mucci the magnificent has declared in purple prose that the blueprint is flawed.
It's not my blueprint. It's Macdonald's.
Then it's flawed as are the conclusions you've based upon that blueprint.
and, that the unimproved roads are owned by the SI, and therefore unusable by NGLA.
Baloney, that road was the property of the SI and the company that owned the SI.
-
Patrick,
Since you are a now a multiple time serial failure on this point, let me say it again.
NGLA owned enough land south of the 9th green for his clubhouse.
The site south of the 9th green had access by the same unimproved road that the Shinnecock Inn did.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8894/17688538505_0e21f1945b_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
-
Here is a fairly contemporaneous photo of the land (taken from the 1912 Southampton Magazine article on the course).
It isn't that far off from what is depicted in the paintings.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-29%20at%2010.04.25%20AM_zpsnjbxks1z.png)
-
Sven,
I didn't notice any but there is an earlier photo in Scotland's Gift of virtually the same thing that shows similar growt Regarding the Committee, I do find it odd that Emmet isn't mentioned in that article when CBM mentioned him later, claiming to have "dropped" Travis at some point although he's clearly still involved late summer 08 and there is no contemporaneous evidence that he was dropped prior to opening that I'm aware of. Regarding the Ideal Holes, CBM certainly drove the process but weren't the results a sort of consensus among experts here and abroad who were familiar with those holes? This would have almost certainly included the men on his committee, even if CBM had final say.
-
Bryan,
Knowing Pat, he'll just blame it on a rookie mistake by Raynor. ;)
-
Sven,
Wasn't 1912 after the land had been cleared for golf? As an aside per a previous discussion, it does appear from the earliest photos that Macdonald clear cut the property the width of it. In other words, they didn't just clear hole corridors.
-
Regarding the Ideal Holes, CBM certainly drove the process but weren't the results a sort of consensus among experts here and abroad who were familiar with those holes? This would have almost certainly included the men on his committee, even if CBM had final say.
Are you now arguing that CBM's list of template holes was not his alone, and others, who gave ideas for their formation, should be credited in their formation?
Sound familiar?
I don't think you really understand what he was doing overseas in 1906, and exactly how long he had been putting together his list of ideal holes. There was more to the trip than just design principals.
At NGLA, the holes can be broken down into three categories:
1. Copies of existing holes
2. Inspirations
3. Originals
When you chart out where the Copies and Inspirations fall on the course map, there were a few very obvious links that needed to be added to make the course work.
Sven
-
Sven,
Wasn't 1912 after the land had been cleared for golf? As an aside per a previous discussion, it does appear from the earliest photos that Macdonald clear cut the property the width of it. In other words, they didn't just clear hole corridors.
Mike:
You already know the answer to your question, why do you need to ask?
If you are arguing that the photo shows already cleared ground, I don't agree. The background might (as it appears to be looking out over the course), but the foreground (the field in a swamp near Cold Stream Pond), does not appear to be. I doubt they would have needed to clear a swamp area, one that was not going to be used as part of the course.
As mentioned already, go back and read Piper and Oakley. It'll give you a better sense of what they did to prepare both the fairway areas and the greens prior to trying to grow grass on them. Some of your comments here suggest you haven't quite grasped the concept, particularly the method for developing the humus that would serve as the base for the turf.
Sven
-
Regarding the Ideal Holes, CBM certainly drove the process but weren't the results a sort of consensus among experts here and abroad who were familiar with those holes? This would have almost certainly included the men on his committee, even if CBM had final say.
Are you now arguing that CBM's list of template holes was not his alone, and others, who gave ideas for their formation, should be credited in their formation?
Sound familiar?
I don't think you really understand what he was doing overseas in 1906, and exactly how long he had been putting together his list of ideal holes. There was more to the trip than just design principals.
At NGLA, the holes can be broken down into three categories:
1. Copies of existing holes
2. Inspirations
3. Originals
When you chart out where the Copies and Inspirations fall on the course map, there were a few very obvious links that needed to be added to make the course work.
Sven
Sven,
I think we understand what he did in 1906 and the general idea of a mix of holes. What remains is that he said in March and October he was going to consult with the committee on the final list, and there are indications he did that after October 1906 and through the planning until May 1907.
Not sure how charting out the holes changes any of that, and not sure what you are saying this sounds familiar to, so please enlighten. This is another instance where once we seem to nail down anything on this thread, someone comes up with some new tangent to distract us. Or to put the blame on my own self, I am having trouble interpreting what your take on this is from your cryptic post.
-
Jeff Brauer.
1 You refer to the "legally binding" solicitation letter. Respectfully you are well out of your element with such pronouncements. I wouldn't even begin to guess at what if anything was "legally binding" in that letter without knowing a whole lot more about the facts and communications between CBM and the founders. For just one issue, the copy of the Solicitation Agreement posted in Scotland's Gift doesn't contain any of the language about the real estate component or other investment schemes, raising the possibility that the letter we are referring to was superseded at some point in the process. No one is denying that, in 1912, the Founders controlled excess land (to the extent of the club's rights to dispose of the land), but that is far different than suggesting that the CBM was legally bound to include a real estate component.
2. You speculate that CBM would have wanted "a 2 foot"topo/contour map "to design the course." I think you are projecting your modern notions of design onto CBM's circumstances. Look at the blueprint. It is not what we think of as a topo or contour map. It has some topographical features drawn on (like the Alps) but it is not a contour map. The elevation markings on the map are straight line elevations between consecutive green sites.
Think about that. It means that the green sites were chosen before the straight line elevations were shot. CBM was not designing off of a 2-foot topo or contour map. He found the green sites first, and then the elevations were shot. So the rough routing was in place before the elevations were surveyed.
3. Maybe you are assuming a different time frame or something, but it seems to me that you are still speculating that CBM did not begin designing the course until after CBM took the option on the property, which was reported in mid-December 1906. The mid-October article and CBM's mid-December comments leave no doubt that he had already been planning by this point, and had accomplished quite a lot. Take for example the Cape hole. According to the blueprint, half the hole and the entire green site would have been underwater at high tide. Yet CBM and Whigham were already touting it a soon to be great hole at the time CBM took the option on the property. How did they find and figure out the hole if they hadn't been planning? Or take his comments about the other templates, or the other contours, or the starting and finishing point, or the frontage on Bullshead and Peconic, or the dimensions of the course, etc. Sure there were details left to be worked out (such as which green templates and other features to use in which places) but he was already a long ways into planning. Yes, he was still playing lip service to running his ideas by the committee, but the reality is that he and Whigham had already been out there planning the course.
4. You speculate that he wouldn't begin routing until after consulting with his committee. First, he was "consulting" with the primary member of his Committee, H.J. Whigham, when they were out there going over the land. Second, he had already been "consulting" with his committee while still abroad! Third, the idea that decisions would be made by committee may have sounded good in the press, but it doesn't seem to have been the way things worked with CBM.
-
Guys,
I think we can determine when CBM and Whigham first rode over the property, or at least pretty closely.
Here is part of Whigham's eulogy of Macdonald titled 'The Evangelist of Golf" that was published in Country Life Magazine.
Note that it's prior to securing the land and at least one of the "2 or 3" trips via horseback CBM claimed the pair made. Also please note that he got the year wrong by one year, something to frustrate us internet sleuths all these years later and possibly leading to another 50 pages of debate. ;)
But I think it makes perfect sense, it apparently was so meaningful to him he still recalls and names the day and month and should hopefully at least put that one to it's final and much-needed resting place. ;D
“I went out with Macdonald to ride over the land which is now the National, and on coming back to the Shinnecock Club for lunch we found four elderly members awaiting us with dire prophecies of what would happen if we selected a site so near their own club, one of the first three golf clubs in America and the most fashionable. Yet on that first Saturday of September in 1907 there were only four old members in their sixties or seventies in the clubhouse, and they confessed that they had to contribute a pretty penny each year to keep things going."
"The very next year on the first Saturday of September I counted over fifty players at Shinnecock, many young people among them. The fame the National had spread so far beyond Long Island that golfers from everywhere came to took over the project, and Shinnecock, instead of being hurt by the proximity of the National, had taken on a new lease of life."
-
Mike, you have got to be kidding me. HJW said 1907, not 1906. You just cannot take the quote and change the year to your liking!
You do this again and again. When the facts don't say what you want them to say, you just change the facts to fit the story.
-
Jeff Brauer.
For just one issue, the copy of the Solicitation Agreement posted in Scotland's Gift doesn't contain any of the language about the real estate component or other investment schemes, raising the possibility that the letter we are referring to was superseded at some point in the process. No one is denying that, in 1912, the Founders controlled excess land (to the extent of the club's rights to dispose of the land), but that is far different than suggesting that the CBM was legally bound to include a real estate component.
David,
If he didn't take it out of his 1912 Letter to the Founders, what would it matter that it was superfluous by 1928 when he published Scotland's Gift? The course was built and opened by 1912 yet he still felt compelled to address the matter directly.
-
Sven,
I think we understand what he did in 1906 and the general idea of a mix of holes. What remains is that he said in March and October he was going to consult with the committee on the final list, and there are indications he did that after October 1906 and through the planning until May 1907.
Not sure how charting out the holes changes any of that, and not sure what you are saying this sounds familiar to, so please enlighten. This is another instance where once we seem to nail down anything on this thread, someone comes up with some new tangent to distract us. Or to put the blame on my own self, I am having trouble interpreting what your take on this is from your cryptic post.
Before he saw the land, he knew what he wanted to build in concept.
Once he saw the land, it moved beyond the concept phase and he had a very good idea as to how many of those holes would fit on the land (a parcel of land described with a good bit of specificity in late 1906).
The rest was gap filling and ironing out the details.
Its a common sense interpretation of the timing of the development of the routing.
By Dec. of 1906, CBM had a very good idea as to what the final product would look like. All of the tangents (ground cover, mosquitos, when the clearing occurred, committee work, access roads, etc.) are all tangents trying to divert us from this core concept.
Does that make sense?
Sven
-
Mike, you have got to be kidding me. HJW said 1907, not 1906. You just cannot take the quote and change the year to your liking!
You do this again and again. When the facts don't say what you want them to say, you just change the facts to fit the story.
David,
Macdonald already owned the land by September of 1907. Why would anyone warn him about the consequences of "if we selected a site so near..."?
That makes no sense whatsoever does it? They'd already selected their site.
-
If he didn't take it out of his 1912 Letter to the Founders, what would it matter that it was superfluous by 1928 when he published Scotland's Gift? The course was built and opened by 1912 yet he still felt compelled to address the matter directly.
I don't know why the version is different than the one in the 1912 letter (the one presumably sent again to the Founders in 1906.) I don't know what the charter (if there was one) said about these issues. That is my point. We don't know an awful lot about CBM's deal with the Founders, so I don't think Jeff should be making pronouncements about what was binding and what was not.
I have no idea what you mean by "superfluous by 1928." In Scotland's Gift, CBM provided a copy of an Agreement and a list of signators. That raises the possibility, at least, that at some point the Founders agreed to something different than what was on the other version of the solicitation letter, whether it was in a subsequent letter or the charter. Maybe he left the language out at printing. Or maybe there was a different version of the agreement. We don't know.
-
From Scotland's Gift, a somewhat similar story, but this one doesn't make much sense if the year is 1907 either, because we learned yesterday that all of the greens had already been built by September 1907. Note also his claim that they were discussing "the possibility of the future classical course".
There were many who thought my idea a pipe dream, and even
some of my best friends felt I was throwing away my time and my
friends' affections and money by trying to build an ideal golf course.
I remember well when in the aultumn of 1907 with little or nothing
to show but n weary waste of land with a beautiful sunset and
stretches of water and meadow.
I was enthusiastically declaiming to a few friends whom I
had asked for luncheon at the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club the
possibility of the future classical course, an intimate
friend of mine, Urban H. Broughton, left the table. Later he
confided to John Grier that he feared because of his affection for
me and believing that I would be so much disappointed, he would
drop a tear.
-
Yes, David, it seems you reserve that privilege only for yourself!
Your laughable non answers to all my questions are mostly speculation on your part. My points are taken directly from the written record, and you never address those other than with vagueness and going back to the same tired passages in Scotland's Gift, whereas my timeline includes that and contemporary articles.
And, if I know nothing of law, then certainly you should do the right thing and admit you know nothing about designing golf courses, then or now.
Sorry for the snark in response to yours.
As to our possible areas of agreement, we do agree he was out there before October 1906, and obviously (since he sought an option) he did enough work to satisfy himself the property (with wiggle room) was what he wanted. That included having Raynor draw a contour map (which doesn't show on the blueprint posted here, and which I have discussed) and other things, including IMHO, setting some practical boundaries based on his six holes, the Inn, the 205 acres, the bay and possible yacht club, etc. I know you think, and I can agree it is the early stages of routing. I tend to call it more analysis, but would agree if you like that I am being finicky.
That said, I posted the parts of the record that could lead one to conclusions that the routing occurred later. Rather than address those factually, you pick at the edges. I suspect its because that's all you can do.
Setting aside my belief that the contents of a solicitation letter would constitute a contract, and I may be wrong, the written record of the participants has housing mentioned as late as March. By December, CBM declares the investment portion not consistent with his goals. So, the change seems to have happened between those two months, strictly according to the written record.
You have stated it was NEVER a part of the plan, presumably because he only offered on 120 acres on the canal site, after the draft solicitation letter was sent out. Believe me, I can see that, and its not unreasonable. But then,you have insisted that NEVER is the only logical conclusion, but to do so, we have to figure all other mentions of it are a mistake beyond that. If there was one mention of it going away before December, I would buy it. But there isn't.
However, you and I agree that the land company probably didn't like it. Well, if they didn't like it, but still offered to sell the exact same 205 acres, as proposed in 1904 you presume they didn't know about that solicitation. To me, that just seems that you presume there were a lot of dumb people back then. Or your presume that CBM had changed his mind on both 120 acres being suitable for a golf course, prior to selecting any specific site, mind you, but never documented that in any of his forays to the press or friends. Since he didn't, until proven otherwise, I presume it was decided in the months the record shows it was.
The only documented contacts between the two entities are in June 1906 when he returns, and October 1907 when the option is negotiated. Doesn't it make sense that this is when the issue was formally put on the table (most likely at the option contract) and resolved that SHPB didn't want CBM to put in any housing? It fits the March letter from Whigham including villas, the 205 acres purchase amount, and the subsequent diminishment of the idea.
Your timeline really doesn't, thus creating reasonable doubt among reasonable people.
Cheers.
-
So now you think that both CBM and Whigham didn't know 1906 from 1907?
You can't just continue to make up your own facts, Mike.
Macdonald already owned the land by September of 1907. Why would anyone warn him about the consequences of "if we selected a site so near..."?
Because that is the kind of thing bitter old men say when they see development and clearing next to their property And remember, as you are so fond of telling us, the project was still in the fairly early stages of development in 1907.
Most importantly, Whigham said 1907, and the description of the fame the National having spread so far beyond Long Island that golfers from everywhere came to took over the project makes much more sense in the 1907-1908 timeframe than in the 1906-1907 timeframe.
Regardless, even if you were correct (and I don't think you are)a September date fits within the timeline I've suggested, and there is no use arguing over it. If you want to continue to change the facts to suit your story, I can't stop you.
________________________________________
Now when will you answer my questions:
1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?
2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?
-
David,
You're really just being David. I've become rather fond and expect no less.
At what point have I changed facts? Words like "I think", "I wonder" etc. indicate opinion and not statement of fact.
I suggested he may have gotten the year wrong because otherwise what Whigham wrote makes no sense at all, and these bitter old men were apparently CBM's close friends.
If it was 1907 and they were close friends why woudn't he just take them over and show the progress on his newly completed greens?
-
If he didn't take it out of his 1912 Letter to the Founders, what would it matter that it was superfluous by 1928 when he published Scotland's Gift? The course was built and opened by 1912 yet he still felt compelled to address the matter directly.
I don't know why the version is different than the one in the 1912 letter (the one presumably sent again to the Founders in 1906.) I don't know what the charter (if there was one) said about these issues. That is my point. We don't know an awful lot about CBM's deal with the Founders, so I don't think Jeff should be making pronouncements about what was binding and what was not.
David, fair enough on my pronouncement, although I didn't have a lot of concerns in saying a written agreement that promises things in exchange for money constituted a contract. Of course they can be amended by signees. As you say, there is no record of it, and we don't know. So, IMHO, gauging the timing of that is best (for now) related to the documents we have, and I think that is a position you support often.
It is mentioned as part of the plan by a participant in March 1906, but by December 1906, CBM allows that it is not so much part of the plan. As far as we know, that written seems to narrow down when the decision takes place, absent the actual contracts and other documents that would be more specific, and which we would all like to see.
Not sure why that would sound so unreasonable.
Just read your post to Mike. First, it is quizzical, but I wouldn't rule out HJW simply reading Scotlands Gift to prepare the eulogy, and making the same mistake that CBM may have made when writing several years after the actual events took place..
I am not sure how 1907 fits your timeline better, so please explain. I would agree NGLA was more famous after opening, but on the other hand, it was famous before the land was selected, in the papers constantly, etc. from 1902 or so as CBM's ideal golf course. That opens the door a bit for the 1906 interpretation.
Bullying phrases like "fits within the timeline I've suggested, and there is no use arguing over it" add nothing to the discussion, and sways no one to your side.
-
Jeff,
1. I don't know how to design a course, but CBM sure did. And his version of what happened is much different than your version of what you think happened.
2. Contrary to your claim, your points are not taken from the written record.
- Show me in the record where it says that CBM needed a 2-foot contour map to design the course?
- Show me in the record where it says that they created such a map?
- Show me in the record where it says Raynor was out there in 1906?
- Show me in the record where it says the real estate hypothetical was "legally binding?"
- I could go on with about 10 more, but you know the record doesn't say any of this.
As to our possible areas of agreement, we do agree he was out there before October 1906, and obviously (since he sought an option) he did enough work to satisfy himself the property (with wiggle room) was what he wanted. That included having Raynor draw a contour map (which doesn't show on the blueprint posted here, and which I have discussed) and other things, including IMHO, setting some practical boundaries based on his six holes, the Inn, the 205 acres, the bay and possible yacht club, etc. I know you think, and I can agree it is the early stages of routing. I tend to call it more analysis, but would agree if you like that I am being finicky.
I agree that they were out there before mid-October going over the property in the initial stages of planning the course, and that according to the article some form of maps with elevations had been created and sent overseas, but I don't know much of anything about these maps. I certainly don't know that they were "contour maps" or that Raynor had drawn them. I don't know if CBM was seeking an option at this point, only that the developer had agreed to sell him land for his course.
That said, I posted the parts of the record that could lead one to conclusions that the routing occurred later. Rather than address those factually, you pick at the edges. I suspect its because that's all you can do.
I've addressed them repeatedly. If they said what you imply (and they don't), then they would directly conflict with CBM's descriptions about already having found a bunch of holes! If CBM has set the start and finish, found a bunch of holes, and described the shape of the course, you can't logically claim that the routing process hasn't started yet! If that means that, in your mind, CBM contradicted himself, then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the routing process was well under way!
Setting aside my belief that the contents of a solicitation letter would constitute a contract, and I may be wrong, the written record of the participants has housing mentioned as late as March. By December, CBM declares the investment portion not consistent with his goals. So, the change seems to have happened between those two months, strictly according to the written record.
Those March letters are very likely repeating old information, but who cares? We know from CBM's December letter and from the developer that there was NO HOUSING COMPONENT ON THE LAND AT NGLA. That has been my point from day one. I don't care if you guys still think it might have still been an active idea in March. It makes no difference for what happened at NGLA.
You have stated it was NEVER a part of the plan, presumably because he only offered on 120 acres on the canal site, after the draft solicitation letter was sent out. Believe me, I can see that, and its not unreasonable. But then,you have insisted that NEVER is the only logical conclusion, but to do so, we have to figure all other mentions of it are a mistake beyond that. If there was one mention of it going away before December, I would buy it. But there isn't.
It was never part of the plan AT NGLA. Surely you can see the difference between my version of what I am saying and your version of what you think I am saying.
As for the rest, I don't care enough to argue about.
-
David,
You're really just being David. I've become rather fond and expect no less.
At what point have I changed facts?
When you wrote: "Also please note that he got the year wrong by one year, something to frustrate us internet sleuths all these years later and possibly leading to another 50 pages of debate."
Plus, your whole theory is based on you changing the dates of both HJW's and CBM's recollections. If that is not changing the facts, I don't know what is.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now how about you answer my questions:
1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?
2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?
-
I am not sure how 1907 fits your timeline better, so please explain. I would agree NGLA was more famous after opening, but on the other hand, it was famous before the land was selected, in the papers constantly, etc. from 1902 or so as CBM's ideal golf course. That opens the door a bit for the 1906 interpretation.
I don't think it fits my timeline "better." I think that there is no justifiable reason to change Whigham's words, especially since in my opinion the description fits better with the 1907-1908 timeline. By my reading over the years, it seems that pilgrimages didn't really start to NGLA until the construction was a bit further along.
Bullying phrases like "fits within the timeline I've suggested, and there is no use arguing over it" add nothing to the discussion, and sways no one to your side.
Bullying? By leaving Mike to his own interpretation I am bullying him? How so?
I'm wasting too much time as it is. I don't have time to argue endlessly with Mike about every one of his tangents, especially when we have had this exact same conversation in the past! If it mattered to the big picture of how NGLA was created I might, but it doesn't, so I am agreeing to disagree. That you would see that as bullying shows you come into this with some pretty loaded opinions.
To put it another way, it really doesn't make much of a difference to my understanding whether they first rode the property in June, July, August, or even September of 1906.
-
Jeff,
1. I don't know how to design a course, but CBM sure did. And his version of what happened is much different than your version of what you think happened.
2. Contrary to your claim, your points are not taken from the written record.
- Show me in the record where it says that CBM needed a 2-foot contour map to design the course?
- Show me in the record where it says that they created such a map?
- Show me in the record where it says Raynor was out there in 1906?
All from Page 203 of Scotlands Gift
- Show me in the record where it says the real estate hypothetical was "legally binding?"
Yes that is my assumption, but isn't money changing hands in exchange for a service or product an agreement?
- I could go on with about 10 more, but you know the record doesn't say any of this.
Horsefeathers, I have showed you where it does. You never actually answer, you just tell us I am wrong (and Mike, etc.)
As to our possible areas of agreement, we do agree he was out there before October 1906, and obviously (since he sought an option) he did enough work to satisfy himself the property (with wiggle room) was what he wanted. That included having Raynor draw a contour map (which doesn't show on the blueprint posted here, and which I have discussed) and other things, including IMHO, setting some practical boundaries based on his six holes, the Inn, the 205 acres, the bay and possible yacht club, etc. I know you think, and I can agree it is the early stages of routing. I tend to call it more analysis, but would agree if you like that I am being finicky.
I agree that they were out there before mid-October going over the property in the initial stages of planning the course, and that according to the article some form of maps with elevations had been created and sent overseas, but I don't know much of anything about these maps. I certainly don't know that they were "contour maps" or that Raynor had drawn them. I don't know if CBM was seeking an option at this point, only that the developer had agreed to sell him land for his course.
See pages 202-3 of your bible, Scotland's Gift. It says he had him produce a contour map. the October article says he produced a contour map. Surely 2+2=4, no? My repeated question is how in good faith to these discussions continually ignore those as wrong or insignificant.
That said, I posted the parts of the record that could lead one to conclusions that the routing occurred later. Rather than address those factually, you pick at the edges. I suspect its because that's all you can do.
I've addressed them repeatedly. If they said what you imply (and they don't), then they would directly conflict with CBM's descriptions about already having found a bunch of holes! If CBM has set the start and finish, found a bunch of holes, and described the shape of the course, you can't logically claim that the routing process hasn't started yet! If that means that, in your mind, CBM contradicted himself, then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the routing process was well under way!
This is probably our area of closest agreement. It may be semantics, which we have argued before. And I may be more finicky than the record allows. I don't really disagree that he had started finding holes. However, I stated and believed that interpreting the record is better if we include both contemporary documents and Scotland's Gift, written many years later. I still believe that. If CBM said in October that they would be setting lengths and picking features later, then I think he was largely doing later, even if it is somewhat confusing wording in today's parlance.
I will disagree that my articles don't say what I think, despite your protests.
Setting aside my belief that the contents of a solicitation letter would constitute a contract, and I may be wrong, the written record of the participants has housing mentioned as late as March. By December, CBM declares the investment portion not consistent with his goals. So, the change seems to have happened between those two months, strictly according to the written record.
Those March letters are very likely repeating old information, but who cares? We know from CBM's December letter and from the developer that there was NO HOUSING COMPONENT ON THE LAND AT NGLA. That has been my point from day one. I don't care if you guys still think it might have still been an active idea in March. It makes no difference for what happened at NGLA.
Show me any documentation that HJW writes in March using the same language as the 1904 letters? It is new prose. He would be in a position to know. He was intelligent enough to write. He wrote at the order of CBM. You use the phrase "very likely" and are not certain. You have no documentation other than your opinion.
You have stated it was NEVER a part of the plan, presumably because he only offered on 120 acres on the canal site, after the draft solicitation letter was sent out. Believe me, I can see that, and its not unreasonable. But then, you have insisted that NEVER is the only logical conclusion, but to do so, we have to figure all other mentions of it are a mistake beyond that. If there was one mention of it going away before December, I would buy it. But there isn't.
It was never part of the plan AT NGLA. Surely you can see the difference between my version of what I am saying and your version of what you think I am saying.
I agree that is what you said and I see the difference even if I skipped some exact wording in typing. However, the meat of the matter is that I presented contemporary documents logically outlining a different theory that is more than reasonable, and your only (and continued) responses are along the lines of below - you don't care to talk about it, there is no sense arguing, etc. Never really a new factual discussion, other than you think this is what happened, even if it varies from the record.
A few of us basically call B.S. at those tactics, and see them as a weakness in your position, and your reluctance to admit any weakness in your position (to be fair there are a few times you have acknowledged we would all like more info) But in this case, I have asked repeatedly simple questions and you again pick at edges, like exact wording, telling the world we don't understand your theory. When we ask to understand it, and you tell us we don't, it does get frustrating. In other words, you aren't the only one feeling like you beat the head against the wall and am wasting too much time on this. Of course, we could all just agree to stop posting and our long national (get it) nightmare would be over! ;)
As for the rest, I don't care enough to argue about.
As to the recent 1906/7 argument, I see what Mike says, but it would have to be deemed inconclusive. But, it was an attempt to bring a new quote forward for discussion.
I do note you distinguish between your understand and a consensus understanding this type of thread should be about. Frankly, I have seen you use that phrase before, too. It sounds a bit dodgy to me in context. But, to be fair, I guess all we can say so far is we all have our own understandings, even though in some cases, both yours and mine cannot be correct.
-
Jeff, Page 205 of Scotland's gift does not provide the date when when Raynor was first hired. It does not say anything about a "2-foot" contour map. It does say that a contour map was created, but it does not say that this was before the course was routed. Elsewhere CBM suggested that a contour map then plaster model would be created to aid on construction, but it DOES NOT say that a contour map would be created before planning began.
You assume that there was a full, detailed 2-foot contour map in mid-October and you may be correct, but I don't go that far. I am sticking with what the article says, maps with with elevations marked. This could be a contour map, or it could be something else more like the blueprint.
As for the HJW article, I am going to wait until I see the original (not the wire version) before I draw any definite conclusions about what is HJW and what isn't. I say this because there were similar articles written in the same timeframe referencing a letter CBM had sent to the rest of the committee (Travis and Whigham) and these articles contain language from the 1904 agreement which is not included in CBM's letter. So, while it could be that Whigham wrote the article as it is written, but I have doubts. It might be another press release situation where the papers are picking up on language from an included copy of an agreement. But as I said, I don't care much either way.
As for your demand that I address what you think is your big theory, no thanks. It has all been covered before. Believe what you want to believe. My reason for being in this conversation it to put an end to this silly notion that CBM originally intended a housing component at NGLA that didn't get dropped until later in the planning process. Surely no one but Mike still believes this is a real thing.
-
David,
You might be right. CBM says contour maps, the October article says all the elevations have been marked. I guess I can't see why they would make one after. Seems like a lot of work after construction for an as built, or just to create that plaster model correctly, but stranger things have happened.
As to housing, everyone agrees it was dropped, I just put together the pieces as the written record said. I don't even think you represent Mike correctly, if you think he was expecting a real estate type plat map of exactly 90 acres (or 60 according to HJW in March) I am not sure why you would think the wire version would seriously change a specific phrase of the HJW letter. I suppose it could happen, but its not likely, and it is at the moment the best we have.
Of course, an informed (or semi informed, if your prefer) discussion is hard to carry on when one side says they don't care to address the other with facts, but repeat the same opinions previously expressed.
I will take a look at that blueprint again over the weekend.
Have a good one.
-
I'm wasting too much time as it is. I don't have time to argue endlessly with Mike about every one of his tangents, especially when we have had this exact same conversation in the past! If it mattered to the big picture of how NGLA was created I might, but it doesn't, so I am agreeing to disagree. That you would see that as bullying shows you come into this with some pretty loaded opinions.
To put it another way, it really doesn't make much of a difference to my understanding whether they first rode the property in June, July, August, or even September of 1906.
David,
Honestly, who is forcing you to respond to my posts? I'm picturing you tied to a chair at gunpoint at this point because it seems your responses to my posts happen within minutes virtually any time of the day or night! ;)
Seriously, we both spend too much time on this, David.
And in reading your explanations on a number of matters including the clearing, and now particularly regarding the surveying where I think we agree, I think we aren't so far apart after all...perhaps a couple of months at most, so that's a good thing I think, although you may recoil in horror at the thought of it.
Have a good weekend.
-
Mike, why won't you answer my questions?
-
As for your demand that I address what you think is your big theory, no thanks. It has all been covered before. Believe what you want to believe. My reason for being in this conversation it to put an end to this silly notion that CBM originally intended a housing component at NGLA that didn't get dropped until later in the planning process. Surely no one but Mike still believes this is a real thing.
David,
I just saw this in your response to Jeff. I'll answer your questions about clearing when I get a chance this weekend but for now I'd just say;
As far as your demand that I address any questions about what you think is your big theory, no thanks. It has all been covered before. Believe what you want to believe. My reason for being in this conversation is to put an end to this silly notion that CBM did not originally intend a housing component at NGLA, and that we have no real factual way of knowing, at this time, when or how it may have been dropped. I am aware of numerous people who believe this was a real thing.
-
David,
Some suggestions as to why:
It's another straw man.
There is no point discussing it any more.....
As for your demand that I address what you think is your big theory, no thanks. It has all been covered before. Believe what you want to believe.
it really doesn't make much of a difference to his understanding.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist and I'm getting punchy late Friday afternoon.
By the way, when is the moron convention next year?
And on another topic, who do we like in the game 7's this weekend?
Tampa or NY Rangers?
Ducks or Hawks?
I have a dilemma - Hawks from my hometown are my second favorite team. However, Jay Flemma had me on his podcast last October and I predicted Ducks and Lightning to be in the finals.....so I find myself rooting for the Ducks just so I will be right. Sort of like me rooting for an October routing, so I can be right. (just to tie it back.....)
-
Mike, I've been answering your questions for weeks, including a bunch today. But you continue to ignore even the most simple questions. You ask constantly but answer rarely. If you want to play games regarding a couple of simple questions, that's up to you.
Jeff and Mike, I've explained why I don't want to get into a long discussion about the state of the supposed housing component in March 1906. I understand your points, but In my opinion, they were just repeating the same old information. I just don't think it matters as to the question of what happened at ngla.
I've also repeatedly explained my thoughts on the Whigham article. I could be wrong.
What else do you want from me? What else is there to say about these issues? We disagree.
My questions to Mike or specifically addressing something he said not long ago. They go to the port of the NGLA matter.
-
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now how about you answer my questions:
1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?
2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?
David,
I finally have a minute (and a beer) while waiting for my wife. Let me give you my best guess based on learning some things here during recent discussion between you, me, and Jeff.
It's why I say I think we're not far apart except perhaps the housing piece but that's ok. If we ever find the original sales agreements that will hopefully clarify matters.
First to the second question. Like you, I really don't believe they cleared the land prior to securing it. That would be pointless. But my related question was based on the erroneous assumption that they would need to clear the land to create a detailed enough survey map for CBM'S architectural needs, or 2 to 3 foot intervals. Jeff corrected me and showed me that would be labor intensive and time consuming but possible.
But also like you, and I hope I'm reading you correctly, I don't think the property was surveyed for golf purposes by Raynor or anyone else prior to securing it.
Now, to segue into your first question.
I also don't think anyone staked out the original 200 acre agreement. Since no one had any plans (including the owner) for the 450 acre parcel, what would be the point? Its not like it's going anywhere and you'd have to do all that work again after the hole boundaries were finalized.
Instead, I think CBM did some calculations and felt that 200 acres would easily encapsulate the landforms he identified, knew his starting and ending point a little way from the Shinnecock Inn, knew he wanted to skirt Bullshead Bay for his Eden and Cape, knew he wanted to get out to the bluff over the Peconic Bay and calculated 2 mile long by 4 acres wide to get to his desired purchase agreement total of 200 acres and knew that would be big enough.
I'm thinking that clearing and construction happened somewhat in tandem and I'm intrigued by your idea that he sited the greens first and look forward to that discussion. In the end, I think he needed to buy 205 to get everything he wanted which was a pretty good estimate, but clearly not a good estimate for including both golf and housing.
I think as he got onto the land his first concern was the golf course and as his routing developed as the land was cleared he went hog wild. For an out and back routing, he show little concern for drawing within the lines and it looks to me as though the boundaries were plotted in sections as the holes and routing evolved during construction.
Hope this helps and I'll explain further if this isn't clear as I type on a phone but that should hopefully move us forward.
-
Mike while I appreciate your answer, I am still having trouble figuring out how you the order of the things I asked about. Part of what might be happening is that I think you may be confusing when the acquired an option and thus "secured" the property (in the Fall) with when they finally took possession (in the Spring.) Also, you've changed so much of your position so drastically, that I am not sure I am accurately putting it back together. So as to try and make sure we are on the same page, I've tried to put my understanding of your position on these issues into a simple chronology:
Pre-Option. You believe there were no written plans, no drawings, no maps, no surveys, and CBM and HJW had not staked the land or the course.
Option (Dec/Nov.) You believe that CBM acquired an option without either party having surveyed or staked out the approximate borders of the parcel.
Pre-purchase (Dec/Nov06 to May/June07) You believe, that even while planning the course, NGLA never staked or surveyed the approximate boundaries of the property or survey the boundaries.
Purchase (May/June07) After the planning was already complete and land purchased, you believe that CBM and HJW finally to staked and surveyed the boundaries of the course.
Post-Purchase You that NGLA began constructing and clearing the golf course.
Do I have it correct?
A few questions:
- You've been insisting for years that couldn't possibly have planned the course course before clearing it. You now seem to be saying the opposite? Do you now believe the course was planned before they cleared the property?
- When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed "for golf purposes?" (And what does that mean, anyway?) If before the purchase, then how did they know where to survey "for golf purposes" if they had never marked off or surveyed the boundaries?
- Do you actually believe that the agreed to a transaction involving real property without every identifying, marking, or surveying the land in question?
Some comments and questions specific to your post:
But also like you, and I hope I'm reading you correctly, I don't think the property was surveyed for golf purposes by Raynor or anyone else prior to securing it.
You are not reading me correctly. The Globe article indicates that maps with elevations had been created and sent abroad. I don't know what exactly these were (contours, centerline elevations, rough sketches with elevation estimates, or something else) but according to the article something had already been done along these lines, and it was for "golf [course] purposes" else why send them abroad to the advisors?
I also don't think anyone staked out the original 200 acre agreement. Since no one had any plans (including the owner) for the 450 acre parcel, what would be the point? Its not like it's going anywhere and you'd have to do all that work again after the hole boundaries were finalized.
"The point" would be to identify the parcel subject to the option. Generally, identifying the property subject to the option isn't just a good idea, it is a legal requirement.
"The point" would also be to give CBM an idea of the boundaries of parcel for when they were out there planning the golf course. How do you suppose CBM could have known if he was even within the agreed upon area if he had not staked out the boundaries?
And they would NOT have to do all the work over again. They'd only have to adjust the borders where changes were to be made, if any.
For an out and back routing, he show little concern for drawing within the lines and it looks to me as though the boundaries were plotted in sections as the holes and routing evolved during construction.
Drawing within the lines? Haven't you been saying that there were no lines whatsoever? And haven't you been writing that the planning was complete before the lines were drawn?
-
Regarding the issue of when the property was mapped and the borders at least roughly drawn, Bryan's "source" contains a passage indicating that in 1906, CBM was invoiced by a "draftsman" named W.B. Duncan at the end of 1906 for "tracing of the property, Shinnecock Hills Club."
Despite the obvious potential confusion, in its early years CBM's project was sometimes referred to as the Shinnecock Hills course or club.
-
I did notice the "tracing" story. What do you suppose the "tracing" was? Was the draftsman creating a copy of an existing document? Or, was he creating the tracing that would be used to create the blueprint? Or, something else ...........
-
Back in 2003 George Bahto started a thread that was about elevations at NGLA. It was about the blueprint and he summarized:
"You know I had the original blueprint for NGLA in my possession - the picture of it is one page 63 of my book.
This blueprint has no fairways drawn in, was the original routing beginning on present #10, and had the original name of the course as “The National Golf Course of America”.
But best of all it has yellow crayon marks, apparently sketched in by Macdonald, indicating where he was thinking of placing his hazards. These marks were not exactly detailed but were done as an artist would, just sort of side strokes of a crayon sketched in - it is sort of a “working drawing.”
There are also India ink marks on the blueprint, blackening in some areas of original yellow marks, as if he was negating earlier ideas.
No fairways drawn, but there were elevation marks along the line of play of each hole - if I had to guess, I would say they were about every 25-feet.
I recorded them all.
The numbers ranged from a low point of +3 .... (presumably feet - the “key” (scale) is missing from the plan)
..... to high point of +57 ........ (let me qualify the “high point” number by saying I am not taking into
account the Alps Hill area on present hole #3).
Later on he says there is no "key" for the blueprint and no date. Too bad.
Another interesting tidbit for the clearing and agronomic fanatics is the following CBM quote that George provided (no source provided)
We did not plow, but cut the brush off throughout the summer while we were making our compost for the seed bed.
Cutting the brush left the roots in the ground to bind it, and these rotted into excellent humus in a few years. It requires nearly 140 tons of compost to top dress one acre one inch in thickness for the fair green seed bed. One inch is scant, two is better. Constant watching is necessary to avoid killing by drought, and the seeded fair green should be covered by light horse manure in winter to prevent winter-killing while the grass is young and tender. The 140 tons of compost is made up as follows:
1. Finely ground limestone 10 tons
2. Clay sandy loam 20 tons
3. Sandy peat muck 75 tons
4. Manure 35 tons
Presumably the summer referred to is the summer of 1907.
And, another short quote about more agronomics.
PUTTING GREENS
The best putting greens we have on Shinnecock Hills (he's talking about National here indicating it is part of the Sh. Hills) were built as follows: In order to conserve moisture, blocks of salt meadow sod, eight to twelve inches in depth, were first placed in the sand, disc-harrowed and cross-harrowed, until the surface was evened up; a heavy coating of crushed lime-stone was then placed on this frayed meadow sod; then a quantity of the best sandy loam obtained in the hollows between the hills was mixed with an equal quantity of our compost sufficient to make a six to eight-inch bed for seeding. Some greens were seeded entirely with Rhode Island Bent, others with Creeping Rent. sometimes sold in England as "South German Agrostis,'' while others with New Zealand Fescue, but the majority of the greens were seeded with various mixtures of these seeds. Seed was used at the rate of 3 pints to 9 square yards.
At least for the greens he got his sandy loam from hollows in the hills. I wonder if that counted to his 10,000 loads.
And, finally another interesting bit on two fronts.
I found those "abandonded" tees on 8 - 12 by comparing the yardage on the original scorecard to the print.
The old proshop came from Bayberry - it was given to the club by Charlie Sabin. You had to love that old wreck of a proshop. I think the second pro shot himself there - he was ther a year, if I remember correctly. He probably hadn't seen anyone for 3 months and went crazy.
Anybody have any idea where those abandoned tees were? Can anyone read the blueprint well enough to point out the yardage differences on those holes?
Re the "old proshop", can someone tell me where that was? Same place as the current one? If it's the same location as the current one, what does the fact that he says Sabin donated it (presumably post 1917 when he acquired Bayberry) mean relative to the 2.5 acres they bought either "immediately" after the deal closed in June 1907 or that they reputedly bought for the clubhouse in 1910?
-
Another interesting tidbit for the clearing and agronomic fanatics is the following CBM quote that George provided (no source provided)
We did not plow, but cut the brush off throughout the summer while we were making our compost for the seed bed.
Cutting the brush left the roots in the ground to bind it, and these rotted into excellent humus in a few years. It requires nearly 140 tons of compost to top dress one acre one inch in thickness for the fair green seed bed. One inch is scant, two is better. Constant watching is necessary to avoid killing by drought, and the seeded fair green should be covered by light horse manure in winter to prevent winter-killing while the grass is young and tender. The 140 tons of compost is made up as follows:
1. Finely ground limestone 10 tons
2. Clay sandy loam 20 tons
3. Sandy peat muck 75 tons
4. Manure 35 tons
Presumably the summer referred to is the summer of 1907.
And, another short quote about more agronomics.
PUTTING GREENS
The best putting greens we have on Shinnecock Hills (he's talking about National here indicating it is part of the Sh. Hills) were built as follows: In order to conserve moisture, blocks of salt meadow sod, eight to twelve inches in depth, were first placed in the sand, disc-harrowed and cross-harrowed, until the surface was evened up; a heavy coating of crushed lime-stone was then placed on this frayed meadow sod; then a quantity of the best sandy loam obtained in the hollows between the hills was mixed with an equal quantity of our compost sufficient to make a six to eight-inch bed for seeding. Some greens were seeded entirely with Rhode Island Bent, others with Creeping Rent. sometimes sold in England as "South German Agrostis,'' while others with New Zealand Fescue, but the majority of the greens were seeded with various mixtures of these seeds. Seed was used at the rate of 3 pints to 9 square yards.
At least for the greens he got his sandy loam from hollows in the hills. I wonder if that counted to his 10,000 loads.
The source for these quotes is CBM's piece in Piper and Oakley, something I recommended you read (or reread) quite a few pages back.
Sven
-
Great stuff, guys. I think we're getting there, although some still may not quite agree but I think the pieces are coming into place.
Before I respond to David's timeline questions, please take another look at the blueprint.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7756/18079147440_ffc4659863_z.jpg)
Please note that the western border, seen in this view along the right side, is a series of straight lines, first out from the area of the Shinnecock Inn, then turning down towards Bullshead Bay where he had located land and water for his Eden and Cape, then almost mirrors and parallels the shore line from thereon, making sure to grab the land of the Alps, before turning again along the length of Peconic Bay.
All straight lines. No fairways defined. Turning at places to parallel the water. A routing that goes out and back and grabs those natural features CBM said he identified on his horseback rides.
I think we're getting there.
-
Mike while I appreciate your answer, I am still having trouble figuring out how you the order of the things I asked about. Part of what might be happening is that I think you may be confusing when the acquired an option and thus "secured" the property (in the Fall) with when they finally took possession (in the Spring.) Also, you've changed so much of your position so drastically, that I am not sure I am accurately putting it back together. So as to try and make sure we are on the same page, I've tried to put my understanding of your position on these issues into a simple chronology:
Pre-Option. You believe there were no written plans, no drawings, no maps, no surveys, and CBM and HJW had not staked the land or the course.
Option (Dec/Nov.) You believe that CBM acquired an option without either party having surveyed or staked out the approximate borders of the parcel.
Pre-purchase (Dec/Nov06 to May/June07) You believe, that even while planning the course, NGLA never staked or surveyed the approximate boundaries of the property or survey the boundaries.
Purchase (May/June07) After the planning was already complete and land purchased, you believe that CBM and HJW finally to staked and surveyed the boundaries of the course.
Post-Purchase You that NGLA began constructing and clearing the golf course.
Do I have it correct?
David,
Let me first revise what you wrote above and then on a separate post I'll answer your questions. If you feel my position has changed you'd be correct but I like to think that's because we're getting additional information we didn't have previously and it's starting to make more sense to me.
Let me start by saying when I read "Scotland's Gift", I think the sentence, "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose." and then a paragraph or two later the phrase, "We obtained an option on the land in November 1906..." are referring to the same event. That is likely the source of our varying interpretations but I believe I'm correct because the next phrase after that is, "and took title to the property in the spring of 1907" (actually June) so I think he's now just giving us the general timeframe of these events and not describing a chronology that followed what he wrote a paragraph and sentence prior.
So to continue in that vain...
Pre-Option. You believe there were no written plans, no drawings, no maps, no surveys, and CBM and HJW had not staked the land or the course. That is generally true. Here's what I think happened. In the late fall of 1905 CBM became aware of the large land buy that a Brooklyn company had made from a London syndicate. It's likely CBM knew these guys. He'd already been scouting around in those hills and sometime prior to December 1906 made an offer for 120 acres. The new NGLA book claims December 1905, and I'd be interested to know more about the source but I suspect it was actually after CBM's return from abroad in May/June 1906. In June upon Macdonald's return from abroad he was quoted as saying he had draughsmen making exact reproduction drawings of holes he'd been interested in from abroad and other reports said that the process of selecting the best holes and gaining unanimity among the experts here and abroad would be the critical next step.
I believe those drawings are what are referred to in the October "Boston Globe" report, which contains numerous errors and describes the property he bought as the entire size of Sebonac Neck. I think someone, probably Travis, spilled the beans that CBM had been riding around on land there and was close to making an offer for 200 acres. They'd probably already decided it at that time, in fact.
I think it likely that CBM made an offer on the 120 acres sometime that summer and was rejected. The rejection probably came with the rejoinder something like, "we'd love for you to build a course out here but that's right where we're planning housing. We have stuff around the edges that we're not planning to use...why don't you look at that?"
Probably very begrudingly once he realized it was over by Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, he and Whigham took their horse rides, I believe in the August/Sept timeframe. His description of insect infestations would be consistent with that. Seeing landforms for his Alps, redan, Eden and then creatively discovering a new hole concept, the Cape, and discovering that the soil was more sand and less gravel they decide to make an offer for 200 acres and the developer agrees, essentially saying "take what you'd like for golf in term of the boundaries and we can write up an agreement with metes and bounds after you figure it out."
In the meantime, papers are drawn up that very generally state CBM's intent to buy 200 acres on Sebonac Neck. They likely describe the property he wants much as the CBM was quoted in the newspaper accounts of December 1906 did, going two miles along the eastern edge from the proposed site of the Shinnecock Inn, along Bulls Head Bay, up for a short stretch and turn back along Peconic Bay and 4 acres wide throughout, which measures roughly 200 acres.
They may or may not have paid someone to stake out or map the land at that time but I don't think it really matters. I think he likely paid that draftman referred to in 1906 to just measure and shoot the general lines so he could get a clear idea of what 200 acres looked lke to make sure all his desired landforms were included. None of it was legally binding yet in terms of the specific boundaries and may have been just something for CBM to start doing rough routings on.
In any case, we know on the afternoon of December 14th, 1906, CBM signs the agreement to option a general 200 acres. He tells us he's secured 2 miles long by 4 acres wide. He states that the next five months will be used to determine the holes and their distances, after which the property will be staked and plaster cast models made to guide the constructors.
More to come...
-
I did notice the "tracing" story. What do you suppose the "tracing" was? Was the draftsman creating a copy of an existing document? Or, was he creating the tracing that would be used to create the blueprint? Or, something else ...........
I briefly looked into what "tracing" meant in those days, and it seems it was the process of copying a previously existing document onto tracing paper. (Then a blueprint could be created from the trace.)
So there was a previously existing drawing, apparently referred to on the invoice as "the property, Shinnecock Golf Club."
-
Option (Dec/Nov. 1906) You believe that CBM acquired an option without either party having surveyed or staked out the approximate borders of the parcel. See my previous answer. I think CBM probably paid someone in 1906 to map out what 200 acres along the bay running from the Shinnecock Inn out to Peconic Bay and following the general outline of the shore looked like. I think the 4 acres wide part is the critical piece as he simply wanted to make sure all the landforms he wanted were included before making his offer. If he traced an existing map as per your recent response I think again the idea was simply to ensure enough land was bought consistent with his agreement with the Founders and that would incorporate the landforms he discovered.
Pre-purchase (Dec/Nov06 to May/June07) You believe, that even while planning the course, NGLA never staked or surveyed the approximate boundaries of the property or survey the boundaries. No, I don't believe that. We know CBM told us that Raynor helped him with the purchase of the property so he had to have mapped out the land before June 1907. I suspect that was simply the final boundary map with any necessary adjustments that took place during final routing and hole designs. I think during this period the remaining holes and their lengths were determined, the finalized routing was determined, and Raynor was likely employed to survey and record the final metes and bounds so that papers could be drawn for the final Sales Agreement.
A 1909 report stated that "In a general way the planning of the course preceded the clearing and the planting of the ground, changes and modifications being made as the work progressed"
I think Raynor was likely employed in this process as well, which is why I like your theory of them siting all of the greensites first and then surveying the distances. I think it's eminently sensible, especially on land that they weren't yet going to clear, but I also think it's why this took a few months to get done correctly before going to sale. I think the routing was determined on the ground, not on paper but then transferred to paper by Raynor. I think by April they had their routing in place and in early May they hired Mortimer Payne to lead construction.
Purchase (May/June07) After the planning was already complete and land purchased, you believe that CBM and HJW finally to staked and surveyed the boundaries of the course. No, the metes and bounds were determined before then by Raynor I believe as CBM told us. But I think if you look at the western boundary of the property, that was predetermined in the sense of straight lines turning at points to parallel the shoreline and keep within the 200 acres already pre-determined.
Post-Purchase You that NGLA began constructing and clearing the golf course. Macdonald and others describing the clearing process taking place that summer makes sense and I think they basically clear-cut and then fertilized and planted grass on the entire property. They did not plough except for some of the greens, which required a special treatment described in Piper and Oakley. Lack of fairway lines on the blueprint would be consistent with that approach. The greens were built first and we know that work was completed by September 1907.
I think overall that western border being a series of dead straight lines only turning in relation to the adjoining sea is very telling. Much as Behr said, he wanted to ensure he had enough land to encompass the land forms he'd found and even with that, there was land left over for other purposes.
I believe those straight lines clearly indicate that he did not fit the boundaries to the golf holes. He bought a big enough box to work within and then determined the best golf holes within the box.
I hope this helps and I believe this has been a terrific discussion. We still have questions but as I said, I think the picture is coming into view.
-
Mike:
The straight lines tell us nothing, other than that was how property lines were created. In the absence of a natural feature (like a creek), you use lines between points to demarcate borders.
Also, you overstate the room between the western boundary and the golf course. Go back and look at the overlays in this thread. Other than down near the southern part of the course, there is very little room left over for other purposes, if any.
If anything, the way the lines are angled to track the turns on the course suggests to me the golf holes came first, and then the boundary.
Sven
-
Regarding your longer answer, rather than bogging down the conversation sifting through all the conjecture about who knew who, who suggested the purchase, who spilled the beans, what the option agreement said, what was "legally binding," etc., I'll just set it aside and try to cut to the quick. You wrote: "They may or may not have paid someone to stake out or map the land at that time but I don't think it really matters."
The reason it matters is because you have long insisted that the land had not been staked out (or even specifically identified) at the time the option was obtained. In Scotland's Gift, CBM wrote that they again earnestly studied the contour and selected those that would fit with what he had in mind, after which they staked out the land they wanted. You have long insisted that this did not happen until Winter and Spring.
If you have changed your mind on this issue, then great. But it does matter.
-
Where they could, surveyors drew straight lines, especially when it came to setting out the borders for the purpose of the transfer of real property, because they had to describe those borders in "metes" and legal description in metes for non-regular curves lines is incredibly difficult. If it is curvy border, it was probably a "bound" border, like along Bullshead.
-
David,
Please see my answers in Blue below;
A few questions:
- You've been insisting for years that couldn't possibly have planned the course course before clearing it. You now seem to be saying the opposite? Do you now believe the course was planned before they cleared the property? Yes but was surprised to learn that it wasn't cleared before summer 1907 but that now makes perfect sense as they now owned the property outright. Until Jeff Brauer's response yesterday I assumed they would have to clear it before getting it surveyed "for golf purposes".
- When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed "for golf purposes?" (And what does that mean, anyway?) If before the purchase, then how did they know where to survey "for golf purposes" if they had never marked off or surveyed the boundaries? By "for golf purposes" I mean a topographical survey down to 2 foot intervals. Anything bigger than that has too much variation for architectural use on a golf course. To your second question, I think they knew in general terms what the width of the "box" they were working within was. If it was because a 200 acre map had already been drawn prior or because Raynor was working along side them at that point we know this got accomplished in conjunction with the routing being done that spring of 1907.
- Do you actually believe that the agreed to a transaction involving real property without every identifying, marking, or surveying the land in question? It appears something was done in 1906 (tracing) but we're not sure and I don't think the agreement to secure land with the Real Estate company would have any mention of metes and bounds but only generalities. They agreed to purchase 200 acres of 450 available whose boundaries would be determined later, yes. CBM described the general area as running along the bays and two miles long by 4 acres wide. It incorporated the landforms he wanted and that was the most critical thing.
Some comments and questions specific to your post:
But also like you, and I hope I'm reading you correctly, I don't think the property was surveyed for golf purposes by Raynor or anyone else prior to securing it.
As described above, I don't think the property was surveyed down to 2 or 3 foot intervals for golf purposes prior to securing the land. If a map was drawn with rough outlines of what 200 acres looked like along the coast that would be all by that point, I'd imagine.
You are not reading me correctly. The Globe article indicates that maps with elevations had been created and sent abroad. I don't know what exactly these were (contours, centerline elevations, rough sketches with elevation estimates, or something else) but according to the article something had already been done along these lines, and it was for "golf [course] purposes" else why send them abroad to the advisors? I don't think that's what was sent to advisors abroad although I could be wrong. I don't think it matters much to our timeline in any case.
I also don't think anyone staked out the original 200 acre agreement. Since no one had any plans (including the owner) for the 450 acre parcel, what would be the point? Its not like it's going anywhere and you'd have to do all that work again after the hole boundaries were finalized.
"The point" would be to identify the parcel subject to the option. Generally, identifying the property subject to the option isn't just a good idea, it is a legal requirement. I think the 200 acres defined in the agreement would be as CBM described them in news accounts in December 1907, as running along the shore for two miles x 4 acres wide. If they included an outline map of what area that entailed I'd be surprised to learn it was a detailed contour map with 2 to 3 foot elevations.
"The point" would also be to give CBM an idea of the boundaries of parcel for when they were out there planning the golf course. How do you suppose CBM could have known if he was even within the agreed upon area if he had not staked out the boundaries?
And they would NOT have to do all the work over again. They'd only have to adjust the borders where changes were to be made, if any.
For an out and back routing, he show little concern for drawing within the lines and it looks to me as though the boundaries were plotted in sections as the holes and routing evolved during construction.
Drawing within the lines? Haven't you been saying that there were no lines whatsoever? And haven't you been writing that the planning was complete before the lines were drawn?
I was wrong in my last few statements. Looking at the blueprint again this morning I think I have it right now.
In other words, I think the straight line western boundaries show us the parameters of the box that CBM had to work with. When I said he drew outside the lines I was wrong; the box already included the landforms he had previously identified.
-
David,
Please see my answers in Blue below;
A few questions:
- You've been insisting for years that couldn't possibly have planned the course course before clearing it. You now seem to be saying the opposite? Do you now believe the course was planned before they cleared the property? Yes but was surprised to learn that it wasn't cleared before summer 1907 but that now makes perfect sense as they now owned the property outright. Until Jeff Brauer's response yesterday I assumed they would have to clear it before getting it surveyed "for golf purposes".
Which came first, the rough routing or the survey for golf purposes?
- When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed "for golf purposes?" (And what does that mean, anyway?) If before the purchase, then how did they know where to survey "for golf purposes" if they had never marked off or surveyed the boundaries? By "for golf purposes" I mean a topographical survey down to 2 foot intervals. Anything bigger than that has too much variation for architectural use on a golf course. To your second question, I think they knew in general terms what the width of the "box" they were working within was. If it was because a 200 acre map had already been drawn prior or because Raynor was working along side them at that point we know this got accomplished in conjunction with the routing being done that spring of 1907.
Still hoping you will tell me, "when exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed for golf purposes?" Was it before they routed the course? After they routed the course?
________________________________________
Maybe it is just drug-induced flash backs to 1L Property Law, but whenever you start talking about how you don't think the option agreement specified the property in question, I cringe. For real property transactions (including options for real property) there were (and are) well known and long established legal standards requiring identification of the parcel in question, and so your conjecture that CBM acquired an option without specifically identifying the parcel in question doesn't sit well with me. I know that CBM apparently said that there was some wiggle room regarding the exact lines, but I am very curious as to how that was worded in whatever deal they cut. I'd be very surprised it if was a vague as you suggest.
-
Regarding your longer answer, rather than bogging down the conversation sifting through all the conjecture about who knew who, who suggested the purchase, who spilled the beans, what the option agreement said, what was "legally binding," etc., I'll just set it aside and try to cut to the quick. You wrote: "They may or may not have paid someone to stake out or map the land at that time but I don't think it really matters."
The reason it matters is because you have long insisted that the land had not been staked out (or even specifically identified) at the time the option was obtained. In Scotland's Gift, CBM wrote that they again earnestly studied the contour and selected those that would fit with what he had in mind, after which they staked out the land they wanted. You have long insisted that this did not happen until Winter and Spring.
If you have changed your mind on this issue, then great. But it does matter.
David,
I think any survey done prior to December 1906 would have simply been to measure the distance along the general route CBM wanted to take to include the landforms for the Alps, Eden, redan, and Cape, skirt past Bullshead Bay out to Peconic Bay. He knew his starting and ending points. He knew he wanted the stretch along Peconic Bay, I believe.
In fact, I think any map drawn prior to December would have been to measure that route (2 miles) and then determine the width he'd need to get to a pre-determined 200 acres (4 acres wide) that he wanted to purchase consistent with his Agreement with the Founders.
I think when CBM wrote "Again, we earnestly studied the contour and selected those that would fit in...after which we staked out the land we wanted" happened in the spring of 1907. I still think "Again" means sometime after those first times they did it on horseback, yes, but believe that he's talking about the design work in the spring.
I think first they found landforms and soil they knew they could use and even identified some holes. They believed they could easily get their golf course within those pre-determined 200 acres they'd estimated needing for their purposes and optioned the property.
Then, Again, after they were sure they had an option in hand they studied the landforms to determine which additional holes to place and their distances, much as CBM told us he was going to spend the next five months doing.
-
I'm going to be tied up until probably sometime tomorrow but wonder how much variation there is in that blueprint between the eastern and western borders on average?
I'm not a draftsman but it looks pretty consistent throughout except for nips and tucks here and there.
-
"In fact, I think any map drawn prior to December would have been to measure that route (2 miles) and then determine the width he'd need to get to a pre-determined 200 acres (4 acres wide) that he wanted to purchase consistent with his Agreement with the Founders."
Mike:
You are so tied to the RE concept that you can't see the obvious truth. The width was determined by the golf course, not by a desire to have additional land available to honor a throw away clause in a concept piece drafted close to three years prior that his founders did not care about in the least.
The lines track the course, as does the width.
Sven
-
Bryan,
Below is YOUR interpretation of where the roads were in 1904, prior to CBM's inspection of the properry, and once again your interpretation is dead wrong.
Like Mike, you've determined your conclusion/goal and are forcing and fabricating information to support your conclusions/goals.
You have a NETWORK of roads running through the property in 1904.
Yet, in 1906 CBM tells us.
"This property was little known and had never been surveyed."
It abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects.
THEONLYWAY ONE COULD GET OVER THE GROUND WAS ON PONIES".
But wait, you claimed that as early as 1904 that there was a network of roads throughout the property.
And earlier, you insisted that they couldn't get vehicles to NGLA because there were NO roads.
Now you're claiming that a network of roads were all over the property.
You keep changing your position to suit your latest attempt to dispute the siting of the clubhouse
If there was a network of roads throughout the property, they could have used those roads, but Macdonald clearly stated that the ONLY way one could get around the property was on horseback. That there were NO ROADS
What happened to your roads ?
Did a hurricane wipe them out ?
If you were familiar with the property, and the topography, including the topo you supplied, you'd know that the yellow lines you indicated below are misplaced.
The road leading to Peconic Bay was a coastal road along Bullhead Bay, and not one running through the golf course as you would have us believe.
Your road leading to Peconic Bay would be on a steep slope rather than the flats adjacent to Bullhead Bay.
Essentially, your lack of familiarity with the land has caused you to err again and create and locate roads where none existed.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7793/17637537136_2343b9b354_c.jpg)
-
Sven,
In December after the option was completed Macdonald was quoted as saying the land he secured was 2 miles long and 4 acres wide, which makes up approximately 200 acres.
How much do you think those straight western boundary lines deviate from being 4 acres wide to their eastern counterparts across the property? Again, metes and bounds would be nice to see but it looks pretty consistent throughout, no?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7756/18079147440_ffc4659863_z.jpg)
-
Mike,
You seem to be throwing all sorts of conjecture to avoid acknowledging that CBM staked out the parcel after earnestly studying the contours and determining what he needed for the golf course he envisioned. Why not just listen to what he wrote in Scotland's Gift?
The distance on the blue print between western border and the eastern boundary is not uniform. It is narrowed at the south end of the course, wider in the middle, and widest at the North end. As Sven points out, this generally fit the golf course itself.
-
Mike,
You seem to be throwing all sorts of conjecture to avoid acknowledging that CBM staked out the parcel after earnestly studying the contours and determining what he needed for the golf course he envisioned. Why not just listen to what he wrote in Scotland's Gift?
The distance on the blue print between western border and the eastern boundary is not uniform. It is narrowed at the south end of the course, wider in the middle, and widest at the North end. As Sven points out, this generally fit the golf course itself.
David,
Yes, because I think this is a map with the exact boundaries after they had been slightly refined by Raynor as the holes were determined and routing finalized. It's pinched in a little here where land isn't needed or let out a little there to expand where necessary but overall the deviation from a standard of 4 acres wide is not great.
-
Mike, That is what you want to think, but it is not what CBM said. You can't just ignore Scotland Gift. He said they staked out the borders after earnestly studying the contours in search of places for his the holes he envisioned, then he gives examples of such holes (Cape, Eden, Alps, Redan). This was before the option.
-
Also Mike, I think you inadvertently forgot to answer my question about the timing of the "survey for golf purposes."
When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed for golf purposes? Was it before they roughly routed the course? After they roughly routed the course?
-
Sven,
The source for these quotes is CBM's piece in Piper and Oakley, something I recommended you read (or reread) quite a few pages back.
Yes, you did. And, now the quotes are here.
-
Sven,
In December after the option was completed Macdonald was quoted as saying the land he secured was 2 miles long and 4 acres wide, which makes up approximately 200 acres.
How much do you think those straight western boundary lines deviate from being 4 acres wide to their eastern counterparts across the property? Again, metes and bounds would be nice to see but it looks pretty consistent throughout, no?
And your point is? That his rough estimate of what he thought they would use ended up matching up pretty closely to what they eventually procured?
Seems to me the course was pretty much routed at that point, which is what I've been saying all along. Makes a lot more sense than saying they thought they needed 200+ for a golf course and housing, and they completely missed the boat on including enough room for 60 (or 70) 1.5 acre plots.
Sven
-
I did notice the "tracing" story. What do you suppose the "tracing" was? Was the draftsman creating a copy of an existing document? Or, was he creating the tracing that would be used to create the blueprint? Or, something else ...........
I briefly looked into what "tracing" meant in those days, and it seems it was the process of copying a previously existing document onto tracing paper. (Then a blueprint could be created from the trace.)
So there was a previously existing drawing, apparently referred to on the invoice as "the property, Shinnecock Golf Club."
I looked it up too. Tracing could also mean that an original could be created on tracing paper so that a blueprint could be created from it. It could (speculation) be that Macdonald hired him to create the original drawing that was used to create the blueprint and that he drew it based on a rough sketch from Macdonald.
As an aside, what I read said that blueprints were not very good as working drawings because making notes or changes on them were not very effective because of the blue background.
From CBM's 1914 Golf Illustrated article on the Sahara hole, there was this picture of the model. At the bottom it attributes the surveying and modelling to one "Oscar Smith". Yet another person to add to the possible surveyors list. Is it possible that CBM didn't do a topo survey until after the holes were built? Could he have been working on the ground and using just the blueprint and centerline elevations?
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8779/17651995063_261630a6ca_o.jpg)
-
Also Mike, I think you inadvertently forgot to answer my question about the timing of the "survey for golf purposes."
When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed for golf purposes? Was it before they roughly routed the course? After they roughly routed the course?
Sometime after Macdonald had him first make a survey of "our Sebonac Neck property", which sounds probably post-option but could have been sooner, he had him make a contour map and later gave him the surveyor's maps from abroad, "telling him that I wanted those holes laid ut faithfully to those maps."
Tell me how you define "roughly routed" and I'll try to answer.
-
Tell me how you define "roughly routed" and I'll try to answer.
To me roughly routed means determining the shape of the golf course, the approximate starting and ending points, the turning point (if out and back), and many of the actual green sites.
-
Mike,
Why is it that ONLY two roads appear on this blueprint ?
The road crossing the 8th & 11th fairway and White's Lane which enters the property by the 13th green and goes to the maintenance area next to the 6th green.
Where are all of the other roads that Bryan clearly indicated, running through the property ?
I guess that they never existed as Bryan indicated.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7756/18079147440_ffc4659863_z.jpg)
-
Great stuff, guys. I think we're getting there, although some still may not quite agree but I think the pieces are coming into place.
Mike,
By "there" do you mean you're predisposed and predetermined conclusion ? ;D
Before I respond to David's timeline questions, please take another look at the blueprint.
I did and noticed that none of Bryan's roads exist.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7756/18079147440_ffc4659863_z.jpg)
Please note that the western border, seen in this view along the right side, is a series of straight lines, first out from the area of the Shinnecock Inn, then turning down towards Bullshead Bay where he had located land and water for his Eden and Cape, then almost mirrors and parallels the shore line from thereon, making sure to grab the land of the Alps, before turning again along the length of Peconic Bay.
Mike, let's not forget that this is a "blueprint", not a survey.
All straight lines. No fairways defined.
Another falacious conclusion on your part.
The fairways, generous as they were are defined by the bunkering schemes and the green sites.
While they're not precise, the playing corridors are clearly in evidence to all but those in denial. ;D
Turning at places to parallel the water.
A routing that goes out and back and grabs those natural features CBM said he identified on his horseback rides.
I think we're getting there.
Again, Mike, I have to ask, where is "there" ?
-
I looked it up too. Tracing could also mean that an original could be created on tracing paper so that a blueprint could be created from it.
This sounds odd to me. Can I have a link to your source where you got this information, so I can understand it?. My understanding is that traces were used for creating blueprints, but that they themselves were generally created by "tracing" an underlying document.
It could (speculation) be that Macdonald hired him to create the original drawing that was used to create the blueprint and that he drew it based on a rough sketch from Macdonald.
If the "draftsman" was hired to create an "original" drawing, then what is the source of that drawing? He charged for "a tracing" not a survey. Surveying was not tracing.
ADDED LATER: I see now I misread what you wrote. My mistake. I agree that it could be based on a rough sketch from Macdonald, although I'd assume tracing was involved. My point is that had to have been a separate source, but we seem to be in agreement an that.
Is it possible that CBM didn't do a topo survey until after the holes were built? Could he have been working on the ground and using just the blueprint and centerline elevations?
It seems possible. And I think it probable that he figured out the rough routing before any detailed contour map was created. I think we learn this from the blueprint with the straight line elevations. (This is consistent with what CBM said in Dec06 - he mentioned the contour map and model would be used to guide construction.) The routing came before the contour map (if one was even ever done before construction.)
-
Also Mike, I think you inadvertently forgot to answer my question about the timing of the "survey for golf purposes."
When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed for golf purposes? Was it before they roughly routed the course? After they roughly routed the course?
Sometime after Macdonald had him first make a survey of "our Sebonac Neck property", which sounds probably post-option but could have been sooner, he had him make a contour map and later gave him the surveyor's maps from abroad, "telling him that I wanted those holes laid ut faithfully to those maps."
Tell me how you define "roughly routed" and I'll try to answer.
Mike,
Let me take a stab at that..
Macdonald stated that the sequence of events were as follows.
Macdonald discovers the 450 acre parcel.
Macdonald & Whigham spend 3 days inspecting the 450 acre parcel
The Company agrees to sell 205 of the 450 acres to CBM
CBM was permitted to select the 205 acres he wanted.
So, he subsequently reexamines the property with an eye toward accomodating the classical holes he had in mind (clear intent).
He determines the land he needs to accomodate his classical holes.
He stakes out that parcel of land.
He obtains an option on that specific parcel of land in 1906
He buys that parcel of land in the Spring of 1907.
Macdonald stated that Immediately after he took possession of the 205 acres, he begins "developing" his golf course.
Not designing it, but, developing it, building it.
Macdonald knew where he was siting his classical holes before he staked the land and he stated same, hence, I don't understand your contention that he bought the land and subsequently began his initial attempts to design the golf course.
There's no one that I know of who clings to that theory other than you.
-
All,
I have no idea if this is representative but here's a picture I took of a vintage photo from George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf". That same angle photo from an even earlier pic appears in "Scotland's Gift" but that pic I took is too blurry to post here. Perhaps someone with better skills can do so but to me it looks to be about the same height and thickness of growth.
Mike,
Here you go again.
You know that the land in the backround isn't the land that NGLA sits on.
I think it likely gives some idea of what the land off the golf course looked like as described by Macdonald, Travis, and others reporting later.
I'm not sure but given the surveying method Jeff just described, it looks like it would have been a bear to do.
There were NO trees on the land at NGLA, your presentation is of dense woodlands.
That's a little disingenuous, don't you think ?
If they did it that summer of 1906, I hope they brought the mosquito nets! ;D
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8868/17610846894_faef18e283_b.jpg)
I recall an old aerial of NGLA floating around here at one point.
I have that aerial and will send it to Steve Lang to post.
It would be interesting to review to see how thick the growth was on adjoining land.
You have to separate coastal land from inland.
Why do you seem to ignore the paintings depicting the land at Shinnecock Hills that Steve Lang posted ?
-
After the fire, there was nothing there, and CMB did NOT want to be in the hash and beds business,
so he put his club in the middle of the (non-golfable) doughnut.[/b]
At least IMHO.
Rich,
I've asked you several times, what made the land in the doughnut "non-golfable" ?
-
Rich Goodale,
I also asked you how many times have you played NGLA ?
I'm trying to gain some context, some reference points in order to evaluate your response regarding your claim that the land that the current clubhouse sits on is/was "NON-GOLFABLE"
-
Bryan, I see now that I had misread your post on the "tracing" and have made an addition to my previous post.
-
In December he described securing a property 2 miles long and 4 acres (roughly 280 yards) wide.
He was casting a big enough net around the landforms he wanted, the areas he wanted to go such as Peconic Bay, and I disagree that he had many greens it's determined by that time.
Interesringly, he wrote that 50 yard wide fairways were ideal. One out, one back, a generous 50 yards between them and another 30 on each side still leaves 70 yards, or an acre deep along two miles.
-
In December he described securing a property 2 miles long and 4 acres (roughly 280 yards) wide.
He was casting a big enough net around the landforms he wanted, the areas he wanted to go such as Peconic Bay, and I disagree that he had many greens it's determined by that time.
Mike, that description does not cast a wide enough net to include even the holes he had already mentioned. The boundary is over 1300 ft. (433 yards) from the shore at the alps feature, and the alps feature barely fits the way it is. That is about 6.25 of the square-acre-sides that CBM seems to like using as a measure.
As for your disagreement, you asked me what I meant by "rough routing" and I told you.
And you still haven't answered the question:
When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed for golf purposes? Was it before they had found most of the green sites, or after?
-
8) I read that CH Sabin had his own back entrance from Bayberry Land property to NGLA and his own “caddy shack.” I assume this is what was turned over to NGLA?
It’s interesting that there was a 20 ft topo map available from the USGS, from 1903 Survey and it doesn’t show much in the way of formal roadway paths. Any field reconnaissance on horseback could have been used to add some more detail. I see some high points...
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/67dd673d-9cfa-4e94-b9b7-69618f9f581d_zpszxjayjgn.jpg)
Is it then funny that a published 1916 Road Atlas only shows one path to the NGLA Clubhouse? And a second Atlas detail also shows the road along Bull Head Bay as does the USGS topo...
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/6f63c05d-aa7e-48b4-be63-9b95826c4bc3_zpspdoc8el0.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/e223e778-c833-4048-ba0e-8c2ceb207fce_zpsbyxdfeyf.png)
-
In December he described securing a property 2 miles long and 4 acres (roughly 280 yards) wide.
He was casting a big enough net around the landforms he wanted, the areas he wanted to go such as Peconic Bay, and I disagree that he had many greens it's determined by that time.
Mike, you can disagree all you want, Macdonald stated that he found a good number of his classic holes BEFORE he even staked the property.
He speaks of the ease in finding these holes.
Interesringly, he wrote that 50 yard wide fairways were ideal.
That's a reasonable concept isn't it.
One out, one back, a generous 50 yards between them and another 30 on each side still leaves 70 yards, or an acre deep along two miles.
Let's be clear, this is your theory.
Would you apply your theory to the specific location of the mid-points in the DZ's of the 9th and 10th holes.
I measure the FAIRWAY widths in the DZ at 70 yards on # 9 and # 10.
What does that do to your theory ? ;D
How about the FAIRWAYS at # 16 and # 17 which are 90 yards wide ?
What does that do to your theory ? ;D
What about the swampy and/or hilly areas adjacent to the course ?
Say to the right of # 13 and # 14
You continue to take general statements and attempt to introduce them as factual.
All collies are dogs, but, you would have us believe that all dogs are collies, and that's where your logic continually fails.
-
Steve,
This is the extension of White's Lane that I referenced.
The original gates remain at the juncture of White's Lane and Sebonac Inlet Rd.
Thanks
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/6f63c05d-aa7e-48b4-be63-9b95826c4bc3_zpspdoc8el0.png)
-
I have only studied the map a bit, but what a neat thing to look at. I won't speculate on time, and of course, it was a working map used over several months. (surprised someone never tore it on a tree or fell in the mud. Yeah, maybe architecture has changed in 100 years, but that's what probably would have happened if I was carrying it around!
Two things strike me - he repeatedly called out those 5-6 holes, but was vague about the coast holes, other than he would have them. Those six holes are designed in the most detail, while 1 and 18, maybe 2, don't even have clearly established centerlines. It is clear he designed the course out from those six holes (again, all in the middle of the property)
Second, I notice a yellow line around the border near the first tee that later was bought for the pro shop. It appears that border troubled him somehow, as he noted it. BTW, someone asked where that first pro shop was located, and the rendering in SG shows it just right of the first tee.
The maps do show different holes in various states. The bunkers drawn in yellow pencil look pretty close on holes 3-9, most with additions later, but little on 10 (although two cross bunkers there look to still be in place) and 12-13. Not much on 15-18, or 1-2. In general, it seems more bunkers got added later, and fairway bunkering is closer to the plan than what the greens ended up. For example, 9 green shows ringed with 5 bunkers, and seems to have ended up with less (looking at the SG rendering.)
It does show the whole process was far from linear in CBM's mind, with some holes close to final designs while others haven't even been finally routed. I think that suggests it will be hard to pinpoint what was done when, although, an initial date on the plan would help.
It fascinates me, and I have some thoughts, but I won't share them, as I will surely be shot down as a moron.
Let's just hope the intrepid researchers keep coming up with new stuff.
-
If you're still at four acres wide down the length of two miles the day you sign the papers to secure 200 acres that tells me a lot.
-
8) Mike,
Not sure what point you're making... 200 vs 202 or 202 vs 205, that's ~ 99% accuracy for a literal description. Pretty good for a time when surveys were sometimes in significant error.
2 MILES
5280 FT/MILE
43560 FT2/ACRE
208.7103 FT/SIDE
4 ACRE WIDE
834.841 FT WIDE (12.65 survey chains wide)
8815924.152 FT2 for straight line, 2 mile @ 4 acre wide
43560 FT2/ACRE
===================
202.385 ACRES
-
Mike is not sure what point he is making either, but whatever it is, he is sure it must mean that CBM couldn't have staked out the boundaries in the fall.
-
I have only studied the map a bit, but what a neat thing to look at. I won't speculate on time, and of course, it was a working map used over several months. (surprised someone never tore it on a tree or fell in the mud. Yeah, maybe architecture has changed in 100 years, but that's what probably would have happened if I was carrying it around!
Two things strike me - he repeatedly called out those 5-6 holes, but was vague about the coast holes, other than he would have them.
Jeff, that's not accurate, he went into detail on the "Cape" hole, and the "Leven" hole.
Other than 18, they're really the only "coastal" holes on the property, unless you include the "Eden" which he mentions.
"Narrows" and especially "Punchbowl" are inland holes
Remember, "Leven" was one of his ideal holes.
The "Bottle" hole was also one of his ideal holes.
So, you have # 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 17 at the very least.
I'm trying recall if the 11th and 12th at NGLA resembled any of his other ideal holes.
But, armed with those nine holes and the starting and finishing points, the routing is all but set in concrete.
Those six holes are designed in the most detail, while 1 and 18, maybe 2, don't even have clearly established centerlines. It is clear he designed the course out from those six holes (again, all in the middle of the property)
Second, I notice a yellow line around the border near the first tee that later was bought for the pro shop. It appears that border troubled him somehow, as he noted it. BTW, someone asked where that first pro shop was located, and the rendering in SG shows it just right of the first tee.
The maps do show different holes in various states. The bunkers drawn in yellow pencil look pretty close on holes 3-9, most with additions later, but little on 10 (although two cross bunkers there look to still be in place) and 12-13. Not much on 15-18, or 1-2. In general, it seems more bunkers got added later, and fairway bunkering is closer to the plan than what the greens ended up. For example, 9 green shows ringed with 5 bunkers, and seems to have ended up with less (looking at the SG rendering.)
It does show the whole process was far from linear in CBM's mind, with some holes close to final designs while others haven't even been finally routed. I think that suggests it will be hard to pinpoint what was done when, although, an initial date on the plan would help.
It fascinates me, and I have some thoughts, but I won't share them, as I will surely be shot down as a moron.
Are you qualified to make that evaluation ? ;D
Let's just hope the intrepid researchers keep coming up with new stuff.
Agreed
-
Jeff Brauer, I am looking a scan of the blueprint from George's book and it looks to me like much of the top (N) of the blueprint has deteriorated and is nearly indecipherable. But it looks to me that there were/are markings, including and features and greens and possible centerlines. It is tough to make out, but it looks like about the same amount of detail as the rest of the course.
-
David,
I pulled out "TEOG" and looked at the blueprint under a very powerful light and would agree with you.
-
Jeff & David,
You could go back to the following thread from 2003. George Bahto had had the original blueprint in his possession and in the opening post provides some comment on what he saw and how he interpreted it.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7509.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7509.0.html)
-
I have only studied the map a bit, but what a neat thing to look at. I won't speculate on time, and of course, it was a working map used over several months. (surprised someone never tore it on a tree or fell in the mud. Yeah, maybe architecture has changed in 100 years, but that's what probably would have happened if I was carrying it around!
Two things strike me - he repeatedly called out those 5-6 holes, but was vague about the coast holes, other than he would have them.
Jeff, that's not accurate, he went into detail on the "Cape" hole, and the "Leven" hole.
Other than 18, they're really the only "coastal" holes on the property, unless you include the "Eden" which he mentions.
"Narrows" and especially "Punchbowl" are inland holes
Pat, I am reading your bible, on the passages on page 187 so often referenced as the best source of timeline material. I also consult the other October and Dec. articles. In those cases, he mentioned the Alps, Redan, Eden and Cape. Period. And then he mentions only those again when discussing "placing these holes first." And if you look at what are presuming is the working map during design, those are most detailed. I am speaking of this specific time period and not the hole designs which he presumably decided later from his favorite holes.
On page 191 he does mention the Sahara (second) and the Road, which he only says was easy to duplicate. So the seem to have come later, and if you look at the map, the second isn't detailed at all. There are a few tick marks, but not where the hole ended up. There is nothing int he area of the Leven hole on this map. The Road Hole is there, but CBM said he was not going to use the station master as the carry hazard. Look at the map - it shows a line sort of like what would have gone around the hotel, so this was obviously a prelim design, later changed to bunkers as CBM specifically says on pg. 191.
David,
I looked at that, and it has been a long time since I saw a smudged blueprint, but recall they sort of lighten up, not get darker, unless it was just an oil stain. To my eye, it looks as if the darkness is because the plan had been rolled up, and the edge is sort of curling away from the camera. Besides, the black marks are bunkers decided against. Given their location, it might even be that he had considered reversing 1 and 18 from whatever he had earlier, as it looks like some bunkers are right near 1 tee. Also, the partial centerline on 18 is more of a dogleg (whichever direction it would have played) than the mostly straight hole that was actually built. It seem to me the end of that was somewhere in the Leven hole at that point.
In any case, I see no yellow marks with replacements to the blackened bunkers at that point in time, other than the clear one on the property behind 1 tee. It certainly suggests to me that his portion of the routing and features design was far from figured out, while the middle part was getting much closer.
Of course, I am a moron, so take that into account. ::)
-
8) Here are the 1938 aerials which I had posted for Pat a long time ago for a thread discussing bunkers; beyond their numbers, one can discern a bit about the land cover and development in the area...
NGLA + Shinnecock HIlls
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/324f52ac-6eef-47dc-80c9-8aab56716dbc_zps6bxmfz8j.jpg)
focus on NGLA alone
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/c6c030d8-8eda-467e-9a08-2a8a2820b2b4_zpsrn5pnfts.jpg)
-
The reason I keep harping on the 4 acres wide CBM mentioned in Dec 1906 is because he simply adjusted those straight line boundaries along the western edge in or out as needed as his routing scheme developed.
Of course it came out to 200 or so acres in the end...that's what he optioned! :) Some of you keep saying what it became which is obvious but there was plenty of room at that time to do anything he wanted which he did after securing the land.
-
The reason I keep harping on the 4 acres wide CBM mentioned in Dec 1906 is because he simply adjusted those straight line boundaries along the western edge in or out as needed as his routing scheme developed.
That's your theory, one not supported by the width of the fairways I cited
Of course it came out to 200 or so acres in the end...that's what he optioned! :) Some of you keep saying what it became which is obvious but there was plenty of room at that time to do anything he wanted which he did after securing the land.
Not true.
He staked what he wanted and he purchased what he staked.
You're taking a schematic, a rough draft and trying to insist it was a bona fide survey.
You're distorting the facts to try and reach your predetermined conclusion.................again 😜
-
Pat,
You're helping my case when you keep bringing up those enormous fairway widths. Go back and read Scotland's Gift regarding what he thought were ideal widths for fairways. I had previously speculated that one of the reasons CBM ended up using so much more acreage than his original estimates was the need to create alternate routes for the weaker players. For whatever reason...perhaps because the Developer restricted him from developing cottages or villas, he went hog wild in his fairway widths far beyond what he previously wrote was ideal.
-
Steve,
Is there a larger version of the aerial of NGLA alone? Is the original wider than 800 pixels? If so, can you post at the original size. I'm trying to see where the proshop is on that aerial and I can't quite make it out. I do see where you say that Sabin had a back door path to the 1st tee.
-
...........................
I did and noticed that none of Bryan's roads exist.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7756/18079147440_ffc4659863_z.jpg)
.............................
Mike, let's not forget that this is a "blueprint", not a survey.
..............................
Patrick,
Let's not forget that this is a "blueprint" and not a road map.
To help out your tired old eyes here is a close up of the southern end of NGLA with the unimproved roads from the 1904 USGS topo superimposed. They weren't land locked.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7734/18312535231_65086b2f05_c.jpg)
And, from the Walker Cup program a course map circa 1929 because I thought it was a nice piece of artwork. you can click through for a larger version. Is that the proshop to the right of the 1st tee.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/18284928616_abca3c414c_o.jpg) (https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/18284928616_abca3c414c_o.jpg)
-
Steve,
Is there a larger version of the aerial of NGLA alone? Is the original wider than 800 pixels? If so, can you post at the original size. I'm trying to see where the proshop is on that aerial and I can't quite make it out. I do see where you say that Sabin had a back door path to the 1st tee. Just where the WC program rendering has it. I see a second structure there, perhaps a small caddy shack, which also shows on the rendering in Scotland's Gift.
Bryan,
The NGLA routing render in SG shows it just right (left in the aerial) of the first tee. There is also a second structure in both renderings, probably a caddy shack.
-
Jeff Brauer
- I am not going to speculate on whether the blueprint is smudged or stained or whatever else. But it is difficult to read on the northern part. Nonetheless, the markings are there.
- I don't know how you decided that the black marks are necessarily "bunkers decided against" but I don't think I agree, as many of them seem to be existing bunkers. ADDED: This was George's suggestion but I don't necessarily agree with him either.
- There are plenty yellowish marks along the 18th and first holes, they are just extremely hard to see.
- I don't follow your logic when you speculate that maybe he was planning reversing the direction of the 18th. The bunkers marked are basically in the same relative spots as bunkers now.
- Not sure what "partial centerline" you think you see on the 18th, but I don't see any dogleg center elevation marks.
-
David,
You DID speculate that the blueprint was smudged. No take backs!
I decided the black marks were bunkers he didn't like any more because that is what George Bahto said they were. Maybe they got put back, or maybe George was wrong.
There are some marks, but do you see greens, bunkers, etc? No, you don't.
You can't see the yellow line near where 18 is? I think you just post that I am wrong for some reason as a knee jerk reaction. It's there.
-
Four acres wide is an enormous amount of land stretching two miles. I wonder how wide The Old Course is on average?
-
David,
You DID speculate that the blueprint was smudged. No take backs!
No. I wrote "it looks to me like much of the top (N) of the blueprint has deteriorated and is nearly indecipherable." "Smudged" was all you.
There are some marks, but do you see greens, bunkers, etc? No, you don't.
Yes, I do.
You can't see the yellow line near where 18 is? I think you just post that I am wrong for some reason as a knee jerk reaction. It's there.
Of course I see it. Where did I say I didn't see it? Read what I write. Don't just make things up. But in addition to that mark there are a number of other markings.
-
Mike Cirba, your latest theory fails before CBM even secured the option. Alps hole doesn't even come close to fitting in your imaginary swath, and the Alps hole was his starting point. The four acres wide description was most likely meant as an approximate average width.
-
Four acres wide is an enormous amount of land stretching two miles. I wonder how wide The Old Course is on average?
How wide is "four acres?" The acre measures area, not width. If square it's 209' x 209', or 70 yards x 70 yards.
-
Yes...70 yards roughly Bill. Or 280 yards wide which is huge for an out and back layout. You could put 4 50 yard wide fairways side by side and still have 80 yards left to play with.
-
Jeff & David,
You could go back to the following thread from 2003. George Bahto had had the original blueprint in his possession and in the opening post provides some comment on what he saw and how he interpreted it.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7509.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7509.0.html)
Thanks, Bryan. Didn't someone reference this a bit earlier? Regardless, I looked at it again. As I said to Jeff Brauer I am not sure I agree with George's theory on the black marks, but it could be, I guess. As for the center line elevation readings, FWIW there was an article in the Aug. 27, 1907 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, which provided elevation readings for tees and greens and some undulations.
Was there something in particular you thought we needed to notice?
-
The cool part about 2 miles long is that It's over 3500 yards each way.
Remember what CBM wrote about after finding the right type of landforms and soil it then just becomes a math and engineering task.
-
Bill,
We covered that a while back, with, I think, David providing the most reasonable answer......
Mike,
Even I am getting confused a bit on your position. More to the point, I don't think staking before, or just surveying to find out where they were, etc., makes a big difference in what happened out there. We know they settled on a basic chunk of land before the option, with the ability to make at least minor refinements. Maybe major ones, but it does seem he was continually narrowing down the basic land chunk.
I agree with David he started with those few holes, and it sounds like the Alps and the Redan had to be in place, at least in his mind, if not staked. Then he worked around the edges and up and down from the Inn to the Bay. Knowing the length means he had to set the width at approximately what he did to come up with 205 AC. Can we cut it any finer than that with the info we have?
David,
Geez. How do you see anything with your head stuck so far up where the sun don't shine? ;D
I have no interest in you picking every damn thing I write on word parsing. My main points stand, despite wording differences of smudge or indecipherable. I really don't feel the need to type exactly the words you type when I describe things. I think most followers pretty well know what we mean.
We just don't see the level of design in the areas I mentioned. I can see no other reasonable explanation than he worked more on the holes he says he placed first, first, and other holes that he said he would decide which template, original concept, or combo later. As you like to say (sorry, paraphrasing a bit again, so don't snap at me) we just can't ignore what he wrote in SG. And, my interpretation doesn't, it follows it pretty closely.
This map seems to have been drawn midway through the design process, because it is by no means a finished product. Some areas are more finished than others. It would be interesting to know when that was, but I don't think anything on it really tells us.
Byran,
Agree in full with David's last post. I did reread the thread again, and it seems you or others had already posted the most relevant information. And, we appreciate it!
-
Four acres wide is an enormous amount of land stretching two miles. I wonder how wide The Old Course is on average?
How wide is "four acres?" The acre measures area, not width. If square it's 209' x 209', or 70 yards x 70 yards.
Bill, it is very odd, but that seems to be what he meant. Macdonald made a similar reference when discussing the small parcel of land behind the 18th green. He wrote that about one acre of the parcel fronted the Bay, and the parcel is about 70 yards wide.
-
Jeff Brauer, putting a smiley after your snide comment doesn't make it any less snide.
I told you that I didn't say smudged. Rather than accept that you chastised me and insisted that I did. ("No take backs.") I provided the quote, and now you scold me again for correcting you? That's rich. Don't misrepresent what I write and I won't correct you.
As for what you do and don't see, we must be looking at different maps. Here is that portion of the blueprint from my scan. (The corner with the crayon you keep referencing is cut off, just I grabbed this off a piece I had overlaid with something else.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/brauer.jpg)
Once can see a number of bunkers marked in faded yellow, including the bunkers on the 18th and the bunch of bunkers short and left of the 1st fairway. Additionally one can see at least seven black marks which also seem be bunkers and which seem to be on the course. The 18th green is marked with a circle in the upper left (or that is a greenside bunker and the actual green marking is indecipherable. One can also see the 17th green, the large bunker at the 17th, the center lines between the first green and the second green, what might have been the center elevation between the 17th green and the 18th green, etc.
How you can look at this and conclude that they had not planned this portion of the course is beyond me. Some of the plans may have changed after this point (for example the 1st green looks to have shifted south) but this blueprint shows plans for this portion of the course. They are just difficult to make out on this portion of the plan.
There are bunkers planned
-
Really? Pat has been calling me a moron for years, including the smiley face, and that seems to be socially acceptable? ;)
I appreciate you blowing that up, and understand where you come from, but I just don't happen to see it that way even after a bit of study.
First, I had blown it up here, and I still see the look of a curved blueprint near 18. Second, the clearest bunker is right near current 18, well right of the fairway, but who knows.
I agree some of the black bunkers are in similar places. I thought the ones near one tee were much closer, but then again, maybe it is a general idea and the landforms he fit weren't exactly where he thought the were on the map. Some of the black ones on 18 could be earlier versions.
Of perhaps the most interest to determining some of what happened is two of those black bunkers appear to be where the clubhouse now sits. If you are right, and this is some sort of actual planning, that would seem to shoot Patrick's theory down that he planned for the clubhouse in that location, no? Not that he couldn't have changed his mind ten minutes later.....
-
Jeff Brauer,
If you have an issue with Patrick, take it up with him.
There are over a dozen different features marked in white, faded yellow, or black on that section of the blueprint. If you don't think that represents "some sort of actual planning," then I don't know what you are viewing. You seem to want to assume that the bright, easily decipherable features are more significant or earlier in the process, but I don't agree with this line of reasoning.
As for the 18th, I don't know what fairway you see, but early on the hole was always depicted as a dogleg.
-
Yes, and as depicted on that blueprint, the tee sits in the Leven Hole. That is obviously not a settled design issue, whereas other holes have black (presumably removed and relocated bunkers) nearly full green concept plans, etc. The Leven doesn't even have a centerline.
I don't know how you can't see that this area is not as planned as other areas, which appear to be in their final configurations. Some holes are final, or near final. 1, 2, 17, 18 have some study, but no final features. Its not a question of no planning. Its a question of far less planning on these holes, and that has to be clear to anyone reading.
And, it follows his words as to which holes he placed first, that he found the Road Hole easy to make, (since an early version of that shows) etc. I think this is sure supporting evidence that he did the routing and detail design from the Alps, Redan, Eden and Cape holes out.
Edited to improve the tone a bit.
-
David,
I have looked again. I can see what appears to be a shadow of fw outline on 18, but that isn't really what he did elsewhere, so I don't think that is what it is. Could be wrong. Also, not sure yet those yellow blobs in that area are bunkers, but I can see why you say that.
Of more interest, that sharp line on the right of the apparent 18th as then considered also shows up to the right of 5 tee. Not that different than the line behind 1 tee. Haven't figured out what those might have been for.
-
David,
I pointed to George's old thread because it had his interpretation of what he saw on the original and I thought it might inform the discussion. You are of course free to disagree with George's interpretation.
There were some other interesting (to me) points made in that thread and that I brought forward, but nobody seems to want to go there and that's OK.
Carry on the debate about the yellow blobs.
-
Yes, and as depicted on that blueprint, the tee sits in the Leven Hole. That is obviously not a settled design issue, whereas other holes have black (presumably removed and relocated bunkers) nearly full green concept plans, etc. The Leven doesn't even have a centerline.
I hate to say this Jeff, because you are the expert (and because I am not all that interested in setting you off into one of your fits yet again) but it seems from your comments that you might be confused about what CBM has depicted on this part of the map.
1. The tee for the 18th does NOT sit on the on the Leven hole. The "T" is the tee for the Leven hole. Your distance perspective on this section of the course seems to be way off.
2. The Leven hole DOES have a center line. It is the column of numbers up the right side of the image I posted above, to the small cirle (the location of the green) at the upper right side of the image above.
3. Regarding your comments that "the partial centerline on 18 is more of a dogleg," I am not sure what exactly you mean but I assume you are looking at the edge of the diagonal bunker on the leven hole, not a center line on the 18th.
4. I see now you are referring to "a shadow of fw outline on 18." Again, as near as I can tell you seem to be talking about the angled bunker in the fairway of the leven hole.
_________________________________________
Bryan, I agree that thread is interesting, but if there is something from that thread that you feel is worth highlighting here, I'd encourage you to bring it forward.
-
Here is a very rough depiction of what we are looking at here. Some of the features are very hard to make out, and this was just a rough and quick estimate, but you get the idea. The parts that aren't rough to make out are the center line elevation marks for the 17th, the 17th green, the 17th tee, the 17th bunker, the Sahara bunker, the Sahara center line elevations, and a few other features.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-1-2-17-18.jpg)
One thing confusing for me when lining this up, is that it looks like the green-side bunkers (and possibly the green) on the 1st hole are set further north than currently. Not sure if this was just a transcription problem or whether it was actually intended at this early stage.
As George had written, some of the additions don't seem to accurately placed but seem more like artistic depictions.
-
Some interesting discussion regarding the blueprint.
Steve,
Thanks for sharing the 1938 aerials. I'm not sure how much of the land Sabin purchased had been cleared and/or altered from 1906 until the aerial was taken but it appears that it's really not meadowland but fairly overgrown. Would you agree?
In any case, I think it might be a moot point because it seems from our developing timeline that the course was "planned in a general way" before it was cleared, which would make sense with an intensive design phase happening post-option and a clearing likely happening in conjunction with construction commencing post-purchase.
-
Just an observation related to the 4 acre width CBM mentioned as quoted in December 1906.
Much of the course as built still seems to stay generally within boundaries of 280 yards wide (4 acres) but I think Macdonald had to know fairly early on that his mathematical calculations were going to need revision.
I say that because the features that fall furthest outside those 4-acre wide parameters are features he found in his initial visits; the Alps hill, and the Eden green. Compound that with finding the site for his redan almost due east of his Alps green on the same day meant from a routing standpoint that any hole paralleling the Alps coming back would need to be at least 185-200 yards away from his Alps fairway/green.
In fact, the decision to have all of his par threes run west to east while all of his par fours and fives run more or less north and south (except 1 and 18) are what stretches out the width of the course across the landscape. In the end, I think Macdonald wanted to have it all. He was bound to start and finish his course near the Shinnecock Inn through shear logistics, certainly wanted to use the land forms he identified in his early horseback rides, and I think there's little question he wanted his course to run out to the Peconic Bay bluffs. Combine that with fairway widths that needed to accommodate alternate routes (with some much wider than CBM's previously stated ideal width of around 50 yards) and we have a course utilizing roughly 160-165 acres of the 205 he purchased that also includes sometimes considerable distances between parallel holes.
Whether this was due to a restriction placed by the developer on how the land could be used or the original intent of CBM we'll likely never know without a copy of the original Sales Agreement(s). We only know that Macdonald at most a year prior thought he could build his ideal course on 120 acres near the Canal and ended up securing 67% more land at the Sebonac Neck site, eventually using about 30-35% more than his original estimate near the Canal.
-
For those of you still trying to make sense of the 2 miles by 4 acres wide tidbit of information, I still think it was a handy metaphor CBM used to generally describe for the press and maybe his founders too that the property would be about 205 acres and would generally be a long out and back routing. There is no way that it was ever intended to describe a specific rectangular property. Even getting the course, as it got built, to be measured at 2 miles long in a serpentine routing is difficult.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/455/18133972738_52216be540_c.jpg)
-
Bryan,
What do you get if you roughly follow those straight line sections along the western border of the blueprint? I recognize there are a few sections, first straight out from the Inn, then turning east towards Bullshead Bay and so on, ending up running along Peconic Bay for a stretch. Thanks.
-
As you know, Mike, I've already done that. You get exactly two miles to the end of the property near the site of the Shinnecock Inn.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-2-miles.jpg)
The orange line is 2 miles. The long blue line is 1 mile. The short blue line is a quarter mile.
-
Bryan, I agree that the 4 acres width was nothing more than a "handy metaphor" but the two miles fits the western edge of the golf course property, and the 1 mile of Bullshead frontage fits as well.
My guess is that CBM got the four acre figure the same way Steve Lang did a recently. For descriptive (metaphor) purposes, he may have roughly calculated the width based on one side being two miles, as if it was a rectangle. But it isn't a rectangle, and it would measure around 180 acres or less if CBM was only working with 4 ac width from the western border.
-
Mike Cirba, a few comments and questions based on your two posts above.
1. For years you have insisted that CBM definitely could not have worked out even a rough routing in 1906 because, according to you, it would have been impossible to even roughly route the course due to the "impenetrable" brush on the site. Now you have finally come to acknowledge that the course was at least "planned in a general way" before the land was cleared. Given that you have now conceded your main objection to the theory that the course was at least roughly routed in 1906, on what factual basis are you still insisting that the rough routing could not possibly have occurred in 1906?
2. Regarding your "observation related to the 4 acre width, you seem to have finally acknowledged what I (and others) have been telling you throughout this thread (and before.) Not even the features CBM had described pre-option fit in your mythical four acre strip. (I have to say that it is a little frustrating to read you present it as if you you are the one teaching us about this fact. I've explained this exact point to you repeatedly. It is why I have been telling you, Jeff, and others to look at the early maps since the second page of this thread!)
Also, the point you don't seem to have thought through, though, in your "observation," is that this had already been decided pre-option, just as CBM told us in Scotland's Gift. He had already decided on the holes and features which make your theory about stuffing the course into 110 acres impossible.
You wrote, "Whether this was due to a restriction placed by the developer on how the land could be used or the original intent of CBM we'll likely never know without a copy of the original Sales Agreement(s)." We already know (and you just acknowledged) that before the option CBM had already decided on property which would have effectively killed any notion of a large parcel of leftover land. We also know that the developer was not going to sell CBM land for a housing project! So for you to say that "we'll likely never know" is misleading, at best. We already know to a strong probability. Sure, it would be nice to have confirmation from the records of the actual transactions, but the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that from the beginning of the planning process or before, CBM did not intend to reserve a large section of land for 60 building lots for his members.
-
Pat,
You're helping my case when you keep bringing up those enormous fairway widths.
Go back and read Scotland's Gift regarding what he thought were ideal widths for fairways.
I've read "Scotland's Gift" an inordinate number of times, what he thought "in general" doesn't represent what he did in specific situations.
You constantly try to force specific conclusions from generalizations.
I had previously speculatedthat one of the reasons CBM ended up using so much more acreage than his original estimates was the need to create alternate routes for the weaker players.
Mike, he did that at NGLA.
There's a schematic that used to hang in the basement of the clubhouse that illustrates the alternate routes
For whatever reason...perhaps because the Developer restricted him from developing cottages or villas, he went hog wild in his fairway widths far beyond what he previously wrote was ideal.
Morespeculation on your part.
Would you cite, anywhere, where the developer restricted his use of the 205 acres.[
You're also misinterpreting MacDonald's reference to 50 yards, he wasn't confining fairway width to 50 yards he was addressing the minimum, not the maximum. [/size]
-
...........................
I did and noticed that none of Bryan's roads exist.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7756/18079147440_ffc4659863_z.jpg)
.............................
Mike, let's not forget that this is a "blueprint", not a survey.
..............................
Patrick,
Let's not forget that this is a "blueprint" and not a road map.
Yes, but Macdonald incorporated the only existing roads in his blueprint
To help out your tired old eyes here is a close up of the southern end of NGLA with the unimproved roads from the 1904 USGS topo superimposed. They weren't land locked.
Now you've shifted where the roads were.
You keep changing the location of the roads.
First, you said there were no roads, then you had roads running down three or four holes, now you have the roads removed from NGLA's golf course and running all through Shinnecock Hills's golf course. A golf course that preceded NGLA by a decade.
Why don't you just admit to ALL of your glaring mistakes and the fact that you're grasping at straws because you don't know what you're talking about.
Over and over and over again you've made definitive statements that have been proven wrong, over and over and over again.
And there's one reason and one reason only that you continue to make these mistakes.
You're desperately trying to disprove my premise by resorting to fabricating and distorting the facts.
That shows a lack of intellectual honesty.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7734/18312535231_65086b2f05_c.jpg)
And, from the Walker Cup program a course map circa 1929 because I thought it was a nice piece of artwork. you can click through for a larger version.
The Walker Cup program reinforces my position, not yours
Is that the proshop to the right of the 1st tee.
You're the self proclaimed expert on NGLA, so you should know all the details regarding the historical location of the Proshop😜
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/18284928616_abca3c414c_o.jpg) (https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/18284928616_abca3c414c_o.jpg)
-
Yes...70 yards roughly Bill. Or 280 yards wide which is huge for an out and back layout. You could put 4 50 yard wide fairways side by side and still have 80 yards left to play with.
YOU could !
But that's NOT what Macdonald did.
Some of his fairways were 90 yards wide, including adjacents.
In addition, YOU and YOU alone have equated area with width in terms of the configuration of the land.
You continue to pursue your agenda by exchanging what you think for what Macdonald thought.
That's not legit in any quest for the truth.
-
The cool part about 2 miles long is that It's over 3500 yards each way.
Remember what CBM wrote about after finding the right type of landforms and soil it then just becomes a math and engineering task.
Really ?
Then why did he need 10,000 wagon loads of soil as an additive ?
-
Really? Pat has been calling me a moron for years, including the smiley face, and that seems to be socially acceptable? ;)
Yes, but I have the facts on my side
I appreciate you blowing that up, and understand where you come from, but I just don't happen to see it that way even after a bit of study.
First, I had blown it up here, and I still see the look of a curved blueprint near 18. Second, the clearest bunker is right near current 18, well right of the fairway, but who knows.
I agree some of the black bunkers are in similar places. I thought the ones near one tee were much closer, but then again, maybe it is a general idea and the landforms he fit weren't exactly where he thought the were on the map. Some of the black ones on 18 could be earlier versions.
Of perhaps the most interest to determining some of what happened is two of those black bunkers appear to be where the clubhouse now sits. If you are right, and this is some sort of actual planning, that would seem to shoot Patrick's theory down that he planned for the clubhouse in that location, no? Not that he couldn't have changed his mind ten minutes later.....
-
As you know, Mike, I've already done that. You get exactly two miles to the end of the property near the site of the Shinnecock Inn.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-2-miles.jpg)
The orange line is 2 miles. The long blue line is 1 mile. The short blue line is a quarter mile.
Bryan,
I'm sorry but I missed when you previously posted that. Thanks for reproducing it here.
To David's point about it not being a rectangle and therefore being somewhat shy of 200 acres (less than 180 I believe David estimates) if an actual parallel line was run 280 yards along the western edge, do you agree that was just Macdonald ' s shorthand way of getting to and describing the desired 200 acre agreement he secured? In other words, if some features he desired were further inland than 280 yards he knew he had some latitude there.
-
Really? Pat has been calling me a moron for years, including the smiley face, and that seems to be socially acceptable? ;)
Yes, but I have the facts on my side
I appreciate you blowing that up, and understand where you come from, but I just don't happen to see it that way even after a bit of study.
First, I had blown it up here, and I still see the look of a curved blueprint near 18. Second, the clearest bunker is right near current 18, well right of the fairway, but who knows.
I agree some of the black bunkers are in similar places. I thought the ones near one tee were much closer, but then again, maybe it is a general idea and the landforms he fit weren't exactly where he thought the were on the map. Some of the black ones on 18 could be earlier versions.
Of perhaps the most interest to determining some of what happened is two of those black bunkers appear to be where the clubhouse now sits. If you are right, and this is some sort of actual planning, that would seem to shoot Patrick's theory down that he planned for the clubhouse in that location, no? Not that he couldn't have changed his mind ten minutes later.....
Oy vey!
-
Mike, I posted that, not Bryan. You continue to try and spin regarding the 4ac width, but the fact is the parcel could never have been a set 4ac width, because a substantial part of the course, including the Alps (which was the starting point), doesn't fit.
-
Here is a very rough depiction of what we are looking at here. Some of the features are very hard to make out, and this was just a rough and quick estimate, but you get the idea. The parts that aren't rough to make out are the center line elevation marks for the 17th, the 17th green, the 17th tee, the 17th bunker, the Sahara bunker, the Sahara center line elevations, and a few other features.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-1-2-17-18.jpg)
One thing confusing for me when lining this up, is that it looks like the green-side bunkers (and possibly the green) on the 1st hole are set further north than currently. Not sure if this was just a transcription problem or whether it was actually intended at this early stage.
As George had written, some of the additions don't seem to accurately placed but seem more like artistic depictions.
David,
Thanks for posting that. I suspected we were looking at different things, and for reasons I will try to determine, my computer screen and download simply don't show any of that hard to see area. For instance, on the Leven, I see only the heavy yellow line I thought might be an early CL for 18. The whole bunker etc. that you had seen looks like just a smudge on mind. Ditto for parts or most of holes 1, 2,18,6, 10, etc., although the longer I look at it as a more finished design, the more I see blobs that might be part of the final design, like the big FW bunker on 5, etc, which I wasn't sure about.
Drat, I thought I was on to something that matched CBM's words pretty closely, but I guess it makes sense that someone would have saved something that had made it all the way through the process, rather than something from the interim.
-
Mike,
Are you stating, unequivocally, that the design of NGLA included flanking homes on every hole ?
-
Jeff Brauer,
So then, like your recent outburst concerning my timeline, your latest outburst (since deleted) was also without basis. Do you suppose at some point you will accept that I am not out to get you or working from ulterior motives, but rather am just calling it as I see it?
As for the image quality, I scanned my image using the image in George's book as my source. The quality is good throughout except for the northern part of the course. As I explained the features appear to have been there for the northern part of the course, but for whatever reason they are not legible on the scan. You mentioned some features on the fifth hole. Those features seem pretty easy to decipher on my scan and in George's book, so perhaps your whatever source you on your computer is the problem.
-
Here is an work-in-progress, NOT FOR DUPLICATION, overlay of the 1938 aerial and some of the more prominent features on the blue print which showed up in a scan for color. The green marks match the circles depicting green locations on the blueprint. (I believe the orange circle depicts the mark for the first green, but it is difficult to say so I made it orange.) The blue marks are the black splotches.
Note that most of the greens are pretty close. The one that is off is the current 9th, and I believe that George once said something about this green being moved back fairly early on. Also, I couldn't find a mark for the 8th green so I left it off. There are more marks that may be added later. The red line top (north) end is my estimate of where the approximate edge might have been. I believe the foundation of the Shinnecock Inn is visible south of the course.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1938-3_1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1938-2_1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1938-1_1.jpg)
-
At Steve's suggestion I flipped the images to put north at the top, and corrected an incorrect directional reference.
________________________________________________________
I must be doing something correct on this thread, because I got yet another nasty email from that creep TEPaul tonight, despite my repeated requests that he quit emailing me.
-
Steve,
Thanks for the larger 1938 aerial. I've enlarged and enhanced it to make it a little easier to see. You can click through for a larger version. I can now see the proshop/caddie shack immediately adjacent on the right of the 1st tee. It sat between the current proshop/putting green and the 1st tee.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/263/18368391032_130f16e0cb_h.jpg) (https://farm1.staticflickr.com/263/18368391032_130f16e0cb_h.jpg)
-
As you know, Mike, I've already done that. You get exactly two miles to the end of the property near the site of the Shinnecock Inn.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-2-miles.jpg)
The orange line is 2 miles. The long blue line is 1 mile. The short blue line is a quarter mile.
David, Mike,
Here's another 2 mile line down the more or less centre of the course. If you were to build a rectangle along the centre line that extends 140 yards on either side it would encompass most of the course. That said, I still think it was a convenient metaphor to describe about 205 acres and that CBM never contemplated the property as a rectangle based on 2 miles down the centre or along the the eastern and northern boundary.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/542/18346051846_9453b0bb96_o.jpg)
-
..........................
I've read "Scotland's Gift" an inordinate number of times, ........................
A little English 101 - "Inordinate" means "excessive, undue, unreasonable, unjustifiable, unwarrantable, disproportionate, unwarranted, unnecessary, needless". Which did you mean? ;D
............................
Morespeculation on your part.
Would you cite, anywhere, where the developer restricted his use of the 205 acres.
....................................
You could go back and reread (or read for the first time) David's post #696.
-
Patrick,
You can bluster all you want. The yellow lines are where the 1904 USGS topo mapped unimproved roads. The red lines are the property boundaries. Those are facts.
Of course, you can tell us that the USGS got it wrong in 1904 and you know there were no unimproved roads there. Why not, you've already told us that the Suffolk county GIS is wrong, Macdonald's blueprint is flawed, the NGLA Walker Cup program is wrong, Macdonald got things wrong in Scotland's Gift, and on and on it goes......................
Why is your "premise" so important to you?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7734/18312535231_65086b2f05_c.jpg)
-
Back at the beginning of this thread Patrick (I think) coined the term "donut hole" for the current clubhouse site. The donut hole idea arose I think from the early stick diagram of the course that had the current 1st and 18th curving around open space in the middle.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/maps/Aug26_1907_DailyEagle_diagram.jpg)
The 18th and 1st as currently extant are not nearly that curvilinear. They weren't in the 1938 aerial and weren't in the 1929 Walker Cup program drawing. In fact, there really was no donut hole where the clubhouse sits.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/18284928616_abca3c414c_o.jpg)
Now, David is saying that the blueprint may show the first hole further north (and, thus nearer or on the clubhouse site).
Even now the clubhouse sits virtually on the 18th fairway and is only 30 yards left of the straight line between the 1st tee and 1st green for those having a go at the green. And, being only 150 yards from the 1st tee, the clubhouse must take some hits from that direction or even from the 18th hole side from players trying to keep away from the bluff. Seems odd to me that Macdonald would have squeezed the clubhouse in such a constrained space. I guess the views were worth it.
One also wonders how different the early course was from the current layout.
-
David,
Nice job on the blueprint. Now that you have it plotted it might be possible to approximately date it through comparison with the routing map that show that state of the routing and planned bunkers as of the time it was published in August 1907.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for the additional look with that centerline.
I would agree with you that it's likely it was just shorthand for the approximate 200 or so acres Macdonald promised his Founders and then secured in Dec 1906 running from the Shinnecock Inn, skirting along Bullshead Bay, out to the Peconic Bay for a stretch along the bluff, all of which encompassed the natural landforms and ideal soils he had located. We also know that it would encompass those replica holes he identified early such as the Alps, Eden, redan, and an original Cape.
-
David,
Nice job on the blueprint. Now that you have it plotted it might be possible to approximately date it through comparison with the routing map that show that state of the routing and planned bunkers as of the time it was published in August 1907.
Would that be the rendering in Scotland's Gift? A note on that says "same as designed in 1907,except for modern developments." Or is there another one I am forgetting?
-
;D
Jeff Brauer,
Do you suppose at some point you will accept that I am not out to get you or working from ulterior motives, but rather am just calling it as I see it?
David,
I have always believed you call them like you see them.....but then I believe that about referees and umpires, but occasionally vocally disagree with their calls. ;D
Nice work on the map overlays, I think they contribute a lot to our understanding of how a great course comes together. And thanks for the info on how you got a clearer scan. I will do that this weekend to further enlighten myself, even as your overlay may reduce the need for it.
-
Jeff,
I'm talking about the first published routing from the August 1907 Brooklyn Daily Eagle Bryan reproduced above.
One cool thing on that map I just noted is that the convex bunkers or sandy mounds on 17 are called "Ant Hill Bunkers".
-
Oh....well that one seems clearly to be done by some art guy in the newspaper graphic department. I think a better comparison is to the one in SG. At least, that was what I was comparing it to. David's comparison to the 1938 aerials is probably even more apropos. Both are fascinating and more accurate representations.
Nice catch on the ant hill bunkers. I didn't look that closely, so I was going to say an architect from Toledo must have done some early remodeling.......
-
Jeff,
You ignoramus...there you go with another outburst! ;)
Seriously, the one thing we know about that drawing is that it was likely based on a reporters visit a week or two prior. Whether it represented the plan or what was on the ground at that point...perhaps I'll repost the prior article for reference and let others decide.
-
Mike, you ignorant slut! :o
I am not even sure we know that much. First, it looks like a third grader drew it, second, its hard to fathom arrangements in airplane view from human eye perspective. My guess is he had some version of the CBM maps and just made the simplified drawing from those.
Every article and drawing has a purpose. The blueprint for example was to figure out (or depict) what was designed on the ground.
The newspaper article is trying to give a broad audience some understanding of the topic in limited space. They probably only wanted to show a general layout, so I wouldn't even bother trying to decipher if the donut hole was there or not.
BTW, one of our off line friends, when he is sending David mean emails, has mentioned to use in emails that he had heard the 18th green had moved closer to the water to accommodate the new clubhouse location. Not sure if that is true, or even if he is sure it is true, but it might be worth studying those maps and aerials with that in mind, to see if it helps us better understand the clubhouse issue.
IMHO, if 1 and 18 are different, and moved some way, it would pretty well disavow the notion that CBM would be reserving that for clubhouse, unless we think a cash strapped operation would build holes in its way, only to be moved later. Similarly, I think extending nine only after the new clubhouse was built suggests the site near the INN was the original planned site.
-
Or we could just take CBM's word for it...as opposed to Pat's "what would you have done" interpretation 100 years later...
-
David,
Regarding your premise that the developer held reversion rights in some form; wouldn't the existence of a golf course satisfy the requirement and therefore extinguish those rights of reversion?
-
Jeff,
Here's the first Brooklyn Daily Eagle article printed August 14, 1907, clearly based on an on-site visit;
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/17646050939_9c99b2168c_z.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5459/17644900340_ba5683d43c_z.jpg)
Here's the followup article from August 26, 1907, and it seems that it's titled an "official map of the course" that shows "exactly as it will appear except that several additional bunkers are to be added at points not yet determined." That's why I said it might make for a good "point in time" comparison with David's rendering of the blueprint, with bunkering schemes that seem more refined and more numerous than on this drawing.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8777/18358720126_cc2c1b26d2_z.jpg)
-
Sorry...my sizing stuff is off.
Here's the relevant parts of that article I was referring to. Also, from a timeline perspective it's interesting to note that elevations are listed so a contour map was being employed by this juncture.
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/367/17764922093_7484f99304_b.jpg)
-
Or we could just take CBM's word for it...as opposed to Pat's "what would you have done" interpretation 100 years later...
Jim,
Who does that?
-
Speaking of taking CBM's contemporaneous word for it, here's much of what was quoted on December 15th, 1906 after he secured 200 acres of land. Notice he refers to the same four holes he'd found to date that he mentions in "Scotland's Gift" and talks about the work of his committee over the next five months in deciding on the holes to be reproduced and their distances.
The exact lines would also be staked out after the committee's work in designing the course is complete.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7787/18199276380_05802ceda4_b.jpg)
-
What does anyone think he meant in the last sentence by..."the undulations...are short and billowy, much easier to adapt to a variety of good lies for the ball"?
-
Jim,
Not as steep is the way I read it.
-
David,
Here's the remainder of the December 15th, 1906 Macdonald quote as he continues discussing the "location" of the 200 acres he secured the previous day. I read the "hash or bed" quote as saying that this isn't going to be a resort with club accommodations beyond showers and lockers and don't understand why you believe this statement negates any planned private housing lots for the Founders? In fact, he says there will be sites for housing.
I understand you believe he's referring to the planned development by the Real Estate Company but those 3 to 5 acre parcels would not really be conducive to what was planned to be, and was from the outset, a "National" membership, would they? Also, didn't the Shinnecock Inn only have 30 rooms?
Note - By this time he also has located a "first tee" location some few hundred yards from the Shinnecock Inn.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7729/18200558210_1ea2695a40_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
And if I read it right, that is a quote from CBM, no?
-
Correct Jeff...the day he secured the 200 acres.
-
Mike, Why are you circling though this same material and stale arguments yet again? Every time we seem to be making progress you try to take us back to square one. Again . . .
1. CBM is quoted as saying, "the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished his plans . . .." He is NOT quoted as saying they have not drawn any lines. Surely you understand that saying that exact lines will be drawing doesn't mean that Nothing had been done? Especially when CBM description leaves little doubt that he already had a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land.
2. Your continued speculation and spinning about the supposed housing component is really ridiculous, considering the developer wrote at the end of 1906. Your theory that 3-5 acre parcels were somehow too big for building lots for CBM's founders would be kind of funny, if only you had meant it to be a joke.
3. Despite your representations otherwise, CBM did NOT say that the Cape, Alps, Redan, and Eden were the only holes "he'd found to date at this point." He described the Cape and Eden then indicated that there were other opportunities as well ("there are other opportunites as delightful"), and then he gives a couple of examples ("--for instance to duplicate the Redan Hole . . . . ") and mentions the Alps and the Redan. He did NOT indicate these were the only "opportunities."
A more reasonable reading is that he chose these particular holes as examples ("for instance") because they were famous and/or spectacular, and he was hyping his course. What better to mention if he was hyping the course, than three of the most famous holes in the world and what he thought would be a spectacular water hole?
-
"the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished his plans . . .."
Is there any chance that when he was talking about staking out lines that he was referring to the lines of the holes themselves? For instance a take in the ground where the tee was to go and another where the green was supposed to go. And others along the intended centreline of the fairway. His blueprint does show elevations at points along the centrelines. Could he have not placed stakes at those point to mark places he wanted elevations done.
-
I don't think so Bryan because he goes on to say that latitude will be given to us in that respect. Who would he need latitude from but the developer he had just entered into agreement to secure 200 of 450 available acres?
-
Now, David is saying that the blueprint may show the first hole further north (and, thus nearer or on the clubhouse site).
I know I said this, but I don't have a high degree of confidence in this, because everything is so hard to read on the that section of the blueprint. I had originally thought that the 1st green was further north than I placed it (in orange) on the overlay, but think the location I have it makes more sense based on what I see. It does look to me that there are bunkers/features right over the current location of the clubhouse, but again on this part of the blueprint it is pretty tough to tell.
There does not appear to be a "donut hole" on the map for a clubhouse, though, and there are no apparent border lines in the clubhouse area carving out this piece.
-
Mike, Why are you circling though this same material and stale arguments yet again? Every time we seem to be making progress you try to take us back to square one. Again . . .
1. CBM is quoted as saying, "the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished his plans . . .." He is NOT quoted as saying they have not drawn any lines. Surely you understand that saying that exact lines will be drawing doesn't mean that Nothing had been done? Especially when CBM description leaves little doubt that he already had a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land.
2. Your continued speculation and spinning about the supposed housing component is really ridiculous, considering the developer wrote at the end of 1906. Your theory that 3-5 acre parcels were somehow too big for building lots for CBM's founders would be kind of funny, if only you had meant it to be a joke.
3. Despite your representations otherwise, CBM did NOT say that the Cape, Alps, Redan, and Eden were the only holes "he'd found to date at this point." He described the Cape and Eden then indicated that there were other opportunities as well ("there are other opportunites as delightful"), and then he gives a couple of examples ("--for instance to duplicate the Redan Hole . . . . ") and mentions the Alps and the Redan. He did NOT indicate these were the only "opportunities."
A more reasonable reading is that he chose these particular holes as examples ("for instance") because they were famous and/or spectacular, and he was hyping his course. What better to mention if he was hyping the course, than three of the most famous holes in the world and what he thought would be a spectacular water hole?
David,
What do you think "a more reasonable reading" of this statement would be?
"Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months"
Or this one?
"The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to use in this respect, as all concerned want the golf course to be ideal."
Do you think it sounds anything like what's being described here in "Scotland's Gift"?
"So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It adjoined the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose."
"Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted."
Also, I find it interesting that over 20 years later CBM would describe finding those same exact four holes shortly after recounting how he and Whigham rode horseback over it "2 or 3 times" studying landforms and soil to determine if it was what they wanted. Remarkable.
Similar is the coincidence in him subsequently securing 200 acres that December just happened to match the exact amount he proposed in the Founders agreement.
Truly visionary. ;)
-
Mike, Why are you circling though this same material and stale arguments yet again? Every time we seem to be making progress you try to take us back to square one. Again . . .
1. CBM is quoted as saying, "the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished his plans . . .." He is NOT quoted as saying they have not drawn any lines. Surely you understand that saying that exact lines will be drawing doesn't mean that Nothing had been done? Especially when CBM description leaves little doubt that he already had a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land.
I agree, but believe he is talking property lines and perhaps some golf centerlines. After all, SHPB didn't say anything about giving CBM latitude on golf holes, only property lines. He does suggest plans have been started but not finished. Hard to read that as "the routing was complete well before I bought the property."
2. Your continued speculation and spinning about the supposed housing component is really ridiculous, considering the developer wrote at the end of 1906. Your theory that 3-5 acre parcels were somehow too big for building lots for CBM's founders would be kind of funny, if only you had meant it to be a joke.
Even in December 1906, after the option would have been secured, CBM says there will be opportunities for housing lots. Why can't we accept that? At the very least, it seems reasonable. We know it didn't work out that way, and obviously any attempt to figure out the nuance into just how CBM's thinking transformed is sure to be flawed.
3. Despite your representations otherwise, CBM did NOT say that the Cape, Alps, Redan, and Eden were the only holes "he'd found to date at this point." He described the Cape and Eden then indicated that there were other opportunities as well ("there are other opportunites as delightful"), and then he gives a couple of examples ("--for instance to duplicate the Redan Hole . . . . ") and mentions the Alps and the Redan. He did NOT indicate these were the only "opportunities."
Even in December 1906, he says opportunities, not found holes. They are not the same.
A more reasonable reading is that he chose these particular holes as examples ("for instance") because they were famous and/or spectacular, and he was hyping his course. What better to mention if he was hyping the course, than three of the most famous holes in the world and what he thought would be a spectacular water hole?
Agreed, and also because those were the ones he was sure would be copies, while others hadn't been selected, or selected and fit to the land.
-
David,
Regarding your premise that the developer held reversion rights in some form; wouldn't the existence of a golf course satisfy the requirement and therefore extinguish those rights of reversion?
Jim, I am going by what the developer wrote/said in late 1906, and by his description, it sounds like the developer possessed a Possibility of Reverter (or maybe a Right of Entry) the term of which was 50 years. In other words, the land had to be used as a golf course over the next fifty years, or it would revert back to the developer (subject to return of original payment.) So no, the developer's Possibility of Reverter (or Rt. of Entry) would not have be extingished by the existence of a golf course. If the developer is to be believed, the developer still had an interest in the property for 50 years after the transfer. After the 50 years was up, NGLA could have subdivided the property into real estate like Mike envisions.
-
David,
Do you have more than that one sentence to support that interpretation?
-
David,
It isn't me envisioning building lots for the Founders, it was Charles Blair Macdonald! ::)
It may help to go back and recall exactly what CBM was looking at to build his Ideal course.
Finding the correct landforms.
Finding the correct soils.
He described that as "Half the battle"
Once he located the right property "the completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience, gardening, and mathematics"
In a 1906 article in Outing Magazine, Macdonald described how important it was to find the right sort of soil and landforms.
Studying the above qualities in detail, there can be but one
opinion as to the nature of the soil the course should be built upon,
as well as the contour of the surface of the fairway green-running
as this should in more or less gentle undulations as at St. Andrews,
breaking in hillocks in a few places, more or less bold in certain
parts as at Sandwich and North Berwick.
The three courses above mentioned fulfill the ideal in this respect.
There can be no really first class golf course without such
material to work upon. Securing such a course is really more than
half the battle…Having the material in hand to work upon, the
completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience,
gardening and mathematics.
Here’s Macdonald in December of 1906 the day he secured the land describing what lies ahead in coming months.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/17690566125_31fcd27e73_b.jpg)
It's why I find it so fascinating that Macdonald described the property he secured in such mathematical terms (2 miles long by 4 acres) and the Shinnecock Inn being "200 to 300 yards" from his first tee, as if he hadn't decided yet how much to deduct from the 3520 yards that the two miles out and back would be "ideal".
No wonder he referred to himself as the first golf course "architect". He was trying to turn this into a science.
-
Jim,
I think David has a pretty reasonable interpretation. It would still be nice to see the actual agreement and/or deeds to see if any other exceptions or conditions are noted. It is possible they would allow other activities with permission, including some limited number of lots, or overnight accommodations just for members, but probably not 60! Or, the yacht basin, a gun club, whatever activity besides yachts.
Mike,
Every time I read those articles I see something new (or forgotten) Again, most design is in future tense in three or four instances. However, so is the mention of the contour model, so my earlier thoughts that Raynor did that in summer of 1906 were wrong, according to contemporary documents and quotes. And it does say it would be used for construction purposes, which I didn't see as likely. That makes those contour hash marks on centerlines the "earnest contour studies" CBM referred to in setting the locations of the holes, methinks.
-
Mike Cirba, Despite your self-righteous indignation in your latest few posts, I don't think it is all that complicated, nor do I think your interpretation is the most reasonable one.
Regarding your post 1052, I view all those quotes in the context in which they were presented. CBM had already mentioned or provided examples of ("for instance") six hole locations (what he termed "opportunities") and the general shape of the course. So when he wrote "distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months," he obviously did not mean that this process had not started yet.
Rather he meant that it has not been finally completed, and it had not.
Likewise regarding "the exact lines." Obviously they already had a good idea of the lines, but the process had not yet been finalized. For you to read it as if they hadn't started narrowing things down is ludicrous given what CBM had already told us!
And yes, I to think it sounds like what CBM described in Scotland's gift. After the fact, CBM doesn't dwell on what happened over that winter, and I don't think that is an oversight on his part. It was winter. They had a very good idea on how the course fit before they secured it, and they probably put that idea into a workable form over the winter and spring while working out some of the details, and then they built the course.
I find it interesting that over 20 years later CBM would describe finding those same exact four holes shortly after recounting how he and Whigham rode horseback over it "2 or 3 times" studying landforms to determine if it was what they wanted. Remarkable.
Not really all that remarkable if you look at the rest of Scotland's Gift. If you have read as much of the history as I have, then even you must have started to notice that many of the details in Scotland's Gift also appeared in contemporaneous newspaper accounts and/or various other reports. The details are so accurate that my guess the CBM or someone close to him kept copious notes, a scrapbook or clip book, or perhaps even a journal. He obviously wasn't pulling all that detail from under his hat. So it isn't remarkable to me that his account would be similar to newspaper accounts of the time. Plus, these were all still very famous holes when he wrote his book, and key components of his design approach. So why not mention them again?
Similar is the coincidence in him subsequently securing 200 acres that December just happened to match the exact amount he proposed in the Founders agreement.
This is a bad habit of yours. You just can't assume direct causation because you don't want to accept that something might have been a coincidence. He needed those 200 acres for the course he invisioned. Actually he needed 205. And that is what he bought. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think he bought what needed, just like he said he did.
If you really want to find a reason to link the 200 acres purchase to the 1904 letter, consider the finances. He anticipated that land would not cost more than 40 or 50 thousand dollars. He ended up spending $45,000 for "Cost of land and surveying, legal expenses, etc." Note that "surveying" was included in the section for purchase of the property, and not under the section including the costs of building the course.
-
Jim,
I think David has a pretty reasonable interpretation. It would still be nice to see the actual agreement and/or deeds to see if any other exceptions or conditions are noted. It is possible they would allow other activities with permission, including some limited number of lots, or overnight accommodations just for members, but probably not 60! Or, the yacht basin, a gun club, whatever activity besides yachts.
Mike,
Every time I read those articles I see something new (or forgotten) Again, most design is in future tense in three or four instances. However, so is the mention of the contour model, so my earlier thoughts that Raynor did that in summer of 1906 were wrong, according to contemporary documents and quotes. And it does say it would be used for construction purposes, which I didn't see as likely. That makes those contour hash marks on centerlines the "earnest contour studies" CBM referred to in setting the locations of the holes, methinks.
Jeff,
I don't think Raynor was hired before 1907 is my read.
Here is what he wrote in "Scotland's Gift";
"Seth Raynor was born in Suffolk County in 1878 and settled in
Southampton as a surveyor. Employing him to survey our Sebonac
Neck property, I was so much impressed with his dependability
and seriousness I had him make a contour map and later gave him
my surveyor's maps which I had brought from Scotland and England,
telling him that I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to
those maps. For three to four years he worked by my side."
Here is what he wrote in his 1912 letter to the Founders;
"I cannot speak too strongly of
the work of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, civil
engineer and surveyor, of Southampton.
In the purchase of our property, in surveying
the same, in his influence with the
community on our behalf, and in every
respect, his services have been of inestimable
value, and I trust that the club
will extend to him the courtesies of the
clubhouse during his lifetime."
How do you read it?
He first "surveyed our Sebonac Neck property", the "our" to me suggesting they had at least secured it by then.
Then CBM had him make a contour map, and then later gave him surveyor's maps from abroad with instructions to reproduce them on the ground.
The mention of "purchase" in the Founders letter makes me think it was again part of his work in determining the final boundaries before the Sales Agreement in June 1907.
-
Jeff,
Why would CBM have said the Founders had Surplus Land at their disposal in 1912 but hadn't yet decided on what to do with it? Remember, CBM never mentioned 60 homes or cottages...just the land.
According to David's interpretation they did not have any option to do anything with it.
-
Mike,
Well, I had read it as surveying boundaries and making the contour map in 1906. However, the newspaper passage makes clear the contour map and model was after December more for construction than planning, so I have changed my mind.
As to the phrase "In the purchase of our property" I agree with David that the 4 acres wide by 2 miles long was decided before the option was written up. And yes, I agree with you that Raynor was part of the work in determining final boundaries - most like from January-May 1907.
Unlike David, I think he and they were hardy enough to work in the winter at it.
-
David,
It's interesting you mentioned winter and the lack of activity during that period. Actually, I think most if not almost all of the architectural planning activity happened between mid-Dec 1906 and early May 1907 when Mortimer S. Payne was hired to commence construction.
The rest of the timeline seems to fit as well. For instance, the first news accounts describing the holes and showing the finalized routing were published in August of 1907. Clearing of the holes was taking place over that summer and described as almost completed by late August The construction of the greens was completed by September of 1907. We know the course wasn't ploughed except for the greens.
Do you believe they had a detailed contour map prior to the spring? I don't, but if they had one, couldn't Macdonald and committee kept their work going over the winter?
It also might be interesting to see what the weather was like in Southampton during late 1906 early 1907. Most Long Island winters are generally very golf-able and recall the the committee from Ardmore came to visit in early March, as well.
-
After all, SHPB didn't say anything about giving CBM latitude on golf holes, only property lines. He does suggest plans have been started but not finished. Hard to read that as "the routing was complete well before I bought the property."
Again Jeff, these conversations would be a lot more productive and less contentious if you didn't mischaracterize my position. The little nuances may not matter much to you, but they make a big difference to my position. I have repeatedly said that CBM had some semblance of a rough routing in mind, and that he had a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land. I don't think I have said that the either routing or the plan were absolutely complete and final, but if I did that isn't what I meant.
Even in December 1906, after the option would have been secured, CBM says there will be opportunities for housing lots. Why can't we accept that? At the very least, it seems reasonable. We know it didn't work out that way, and obviously any attempt to figure out the nuance into just how CBM's thinking transformed is sure to be flawed.
Because he did NOT say there were lots available on the NGLA property! He is talking about the development. Look at the context. Look at what he said about not wanting to get into the bed business. Look at what he said about the Inn. Look at what the developer said about the restricted use of the property that same month.
Even in December 1906, he says opportunities, not found holes. They are not the same.
Really? Okay. Using your terms, then, we seem to be in agreement that one can find "opportunities" for golf holes, yet still have plenty of planning left to do. (Thus the reference to planning yet to come.)
-
David,
Do you have more than that one sentence to support that interpretation?
My interpretation is based primarily on that one sentence, but also supported by my understanding of Real Property Law (however limited that may or may not be.) It is a pretty meaty sentence, and "revert" is a pretty loaded term when it comes to real property transactions.
My reading is also somewhat informed by the fact that during negotiations for the 2.4 acre parcel, the developer also seems to have had a similar restriction in mind.
Why would CBM have said the Founders had Surplus Land at their disposal in 1912 but hadn't yet decided on what to do with it? Remember, CBM never mentioned 60 homes or cottages...just the land. One possible reason might be that the original deal limited their options.
According to David's interpretation they did not have any option to do anything with it.
That's not really my position Jim. My position is that, if what the developer said is true, they were subject to the terms of the deal with the developer. But that doesn't mean they could not do anything with it. For example, they could build a practice facility or use it in some other way which was consistent with NGLA's rights.
Have you stopped to consider the possible reasons why no action was taken regarding this land in the Dec. 11, 1911 Founders meeting, or why the land was never distributed to the Founders?
-
David,
It's interesting you mentioned winter and the lack of activity during that period. Actually, I think most if not almost all of the architectural planning activity happened between mid-Dec 1906 and early May 1907 when Mortimer S. Payne was hired to commence construction.
There is a big difference between detailed architectural planning, on the one hand, and finding the green sites and considering how, generally, the course would fit on the land, on the other.
The rest of the timeline seems to fit as well. For instance, the first news accounts describing the holes and showing the finalized routing were published in August of 1907.
I disagree with your timeline. While they probably continued to adjust the plans, articles indicate that planning was complete by late spring. And CBM suggested the planning would be complete before the land was purchased.
Do you believe they had a detailed contour map prior to the spring? I don't, but if they had one, couldn't Macdonald and committee kept their work going over the winter?
A detailed contour map? I prefer not to just make up facts if they aren't in the record. CBM wouldn't have needed "a detailed contour map" to discover and mark the the green sites on the property.
As for finding the weather, knock yourself out.
-
Mike Cirba,
Before you circled back around to rehash all these issues, I had asked you a question about your current position . . .
For years you have insisted that CBM definitely could not have worked out even a rough routing in 1906 because, according to you, it would have been impossible to even roughly route the course due to the "impenetrable" brush on the site. Now you have finally come to acknowledge that the course was at least "planned in a general way" before the land was cleared.
Given that you have now conceded your main objection to the theory that the course was at least roughly routed in 1906, on what factual basis are you still insisting that the rough routing could not possibly have occurred in 1906?
-
I have thought about it...but to my knowledge we have no information on it. The simple fact that CBM mentions it in his 1912 letter, and the way he said something along the lines of 'it was thought and has proved true that we would have surplus land' indicates to me that he thought of that extra land as his (and the Founders) and not the developers.
The little I've read about Reversion/Possibility of Reverter/Right to Entry all discuss when a a grantee fails to meet the condition. In the case of NGLA, the condition was met almost immediately. Nothing I've seen discusses satisfying the reversion right, or the absence of that possibility.
-
The rest of the timeline seems to fit as well. For instance, the first news accounts describing the holes and showing the finalized routing were published in August of 1907.
I disagree with your timeline. While they probably continued to adjust the plans, articles indicate that planning was complete by late spring. And CBM suggested the planning would be complete before the land was purchased.
Actually, I think you do agree with my timeline as I also believe the planning was completed in the late spring of 1907 in the May timeframe.
I'm simply saying that the next steps we all know happened; the hiring of Payne, the release of routing info to the press, the clearing of the property, and the building of the greens all happened subsequent to that planning between May 1907 and September 1907.
-
. . . he thought of that extra land as his (and the Founders) and not the developers.
But it wasn't the developer's land in the way we usually think of it. It was NGLA's land, except NGLA was limited in what they could do with it. NGLA wasn't required to use ever square inch as golf course proper. But that doesn't mean they could do whatever they wanted with whatever was left.
In the case of NGLA, the condition was met almost immediately.
NGLA's "condition" continued for 50 years. NGLA could only use the land for a golf club for 50 years, subject to losing the land if they didn't meet this condition.
If you want to find out more about how this stuff works, you could always try law school.
-
After all, SHPB didn't say anything about giving CBM latitude on golf holes, only property lines. He does suggest plans have been started but not finished. Hard to read that as "the routing was complete well before I bought the property."
Again Jeff, these conversations would be a lot more productive and less contentious if you didn't mischaracterize my position. The little nuances may not matter much to you, but they make a big difference to my position. I have repeatedly said that CBM had some semblance of a rough routing in mind, and that he had a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land. I don't think I have said that the either routing or the plan were absolutely complete and final, but if I did that isn't what I meant.
I don't think I mentioned your position at all. These conversations would go faster if you didn't feel the need to focus on poor misunderstood David first. :'(
I have often thought over the years that some friction develops precisely because the though processes of a lawyer and designer vary between detail and concept. We may never get over that natural hurdle with each other.......
Even in December 1906, after the option would have been secured, CBM says there will be opportunities for housing lots. Why can't we accept that? At the very least, it seems reasonable. We know it didn't work out that way, and obviously any attempt to figure out the nuance into just how CBM's thinking transformed is sure to be flawed.
Because he did NOT say there were lots available on the NGLA property! He is talking about the development. Look at the context. Look at what he said about not wanting to get into the bed business. Look at what he said about the Inn. Look at what the developer said about the restricted use of the property that same month.
I think that is possible, but it is still an assumption on your part. Nowhere does CBM ever mention any cooperative arrangement for SHPB to sell lots to members, but he mentions his on site surplus land early and often until 1912, and the only suggestion he ever made on it was housing. The hash and bed biz comment is more likely rooms in the clubhouse and a restaurant, at least when the Inn was available. The most logical reading is he is still talking about his residential component. If not, please show me a comment I have missed regarding the realty company having adjacent lots. In fact, they never actually did!
Even in December 1906, he says opportunities, not found holes. They are not the same.
Really? Okay. Using your terms, then, we seem to be in agreement that one can find "opportunities" for golf holes, yet still have plenty of planning left to do. (Thus the reference to planning yet to come.)
Yes, really, but we are in agreement to a degree. Our only disagreement, really, over the last few years has been just how much routing did he feel was necessary early on, perhaps wasting time and money routing a course on land he didn't own. In real estate, its not a deal until everything is signed and the rug could be puled out.
And, just how comfortable he would have to be in the land to pull the trigger. I don't think the threshold is anywhere near a full routing, or even a rough routing. I think the myth of the 3 day ride completing the design is wrong, and I know you do, too. As per above, I don’t think he would even have to be close, but just know he had enough length and width at his disposal.
To that end, lets look at some other CBM projects:
Chicago Golf (I and II) 1893 – Not really sure on the first version, but on the second, in Wheaton, he offers on 200 acres, no mention of boundary flexibility or pre-routing. Basically a square sit (and he left a lot of land in the middle….Founders Lots? Desire to do TOC out and back type routing, as Pat originally opines?
Canal Site – Offers on 120 acres, no mention of boundary flexibility or pre-routing. Clearly comfortable in pre-buying property. Obviously gets more sophisticated later.
Merion – Of course, I don’t bring this up to start that old battle, but our disagreements there do figure into my disagreements here.
CBM consults as to property acquisition in June 1910.
Property acquired in Dec. 1910, when member voted on a blank map with no golf course shown. (because it hadn’t been designed….)
Club President makes statement, in the minutes, that puts design in future. (You ignore, but I can’t.)
CBM recommended property flexibility, which turned out to be only minor changes along the road to fit 14-15.
In short, I believe he was comfortable in picking the property first, if it met some criteria he knows from experience. In its simplest terms, that suitability stems from the fact that both legs of the Merion “L” are 4 holes wide and over 2 holes long, assuring 18 holes can be placed on the property. Sure, CBM mentioned the short 13th, and those 3 acres but that is because he realized at the clubhouse area, the width needed to be 2 holes wide. It’s not evidence of routing.
Back to our middle project which seems eerily familiar in timeline:
NGLA –
Upon return from GBI in June, still has three sites to study.
Studies property on horseback for 2-3 days (matches the June 1910 Merion visit and follow up letter)
Acquires option to 205 Acres (with wiggle room - matches the June 1910 Merion recommendation)
Land bought in December (matches Merion)
Design Work Until May (Almost Matches Merion)
Besides the schedule, where each step fits what I believe happened later at Merion, my point is, if, in 1893 and 1905 he is comfortable pre-buying property, and in 1910, he is comfortable recommending selecting property in advance of routing for Merion, why in 1906, would he be uncomfortable when selecting 70% more property than he thinks he needs? (Especially if we buy into the theory that the founder’s lots were 100% off the table)
There are parallels in the rough property lines between Merion and NGLA property – At Merion he makes sure the recommended property is 4 holes wide at most spots. At NGLA he makes sure it is 2+ holes wide for some flexibility.
At NGLA, the property selection is probably mostly a practical and not detailed basis. After determining the length desired clubhouse at the Inn to the desired yacht club and water holes on the Bay, he does some math (his phrase) and realizes the property needs to be about 2 holes wide. He fits his two mile parcel in zig zag fashion to his 4-5 found holes, the Inn, and the water of the bay. Even when it turns 90 degrees to the rest at 1 and 18, is still about the same width. Did he arbitrarily set that width there? Mostly, but like you, I am sure he wandered up there, saw the valley that one could sit in, and set it as required to allow that hole.
As with Merion, there are numerous quotes about how design came later, which you largely ignore, or dismiss as details. You base that entire early routing scenario by interpreting one line of Scotlands Gift as agreeing to sell the land happening way earlier, rather than reporting the signed option as an agreement.
Wouldn't we need your corroborating source to accept and confirms that? And second, (and sorry to be bringing up old wounds only to illustrate why I get bewildered with you from time to time) Why is it you loudly proclaimed on the Merion and Myopia threads the value of contemporary sources, but dismissed the recollection/remembrances of key players in the original construction as unreliable, but here, you rely solely on a probably drunk main participant, also writing exactly 20 years later, and ignore some contemporary sources that contradict?
I believe as strongly as you don't that he was comfortable in picking the land well before anything near a final routing was done. I doubt a busy man would spend time routing on land he didn’t own. I believe he was reasonably comfortable in getting the option on pretty loose fitting land and fitting in the other holes later.
Perhaps, I overstate your position. Maybe I am finicky about wording as you are in a different way. I have heard you say much work was left to be done, but I have also heard you say rough routing was complete (it didn’t have to be) and in some cases, it was fully routed. If you wanted to come down from 18 holes routed, I would come up from 4-6 and we could all sing the Kumbya's.
However, to anyone who declares that the 18 holes had to be rough routed to buy the property, I still have to strongly disagree. It is really rare that this has happened over the years, so if no smart man would do that, then a lot of dumb people have designed and built golf courses! And the bulk of the contemporaneous record just doesn't say that.
-
Mike, News accounts describing the holes were published in early May 1907. For that matter some of the holes had already been described the December before.
-
Jeff I got to your snide comment in your second sentence and I stopped reading. If you want to argue against made up straw men, then there is no reason for me to continue.
-
Mike Cirba,
Before you circled back around to rehash all these issues, I had asked you a question about your current position . . .
For years you have insisted that CBM definitely could not have worked out even a rough routing in 1906 because, according to you, it would have been impossible to even roughly route the course due to the "impenetrable" brush on the site. Now you have finally come to acknowledge that the course was at least "planned in a general way" before the land was cleared.
Given that you have now conceded your main objection to the theory that the course was at least roughly routed in 1906, on what factual basis are you still insisting that the rough routing could not possibly have occurred in 1906?
Sure David,
First, we have reports in the summer of 1907 indicating that clearing was almost complete. On a site of 200 acres I'm not sure what that would require in terms of time but the 1909 report that mentioned "planned in a general way" prior to clearing mentioned they used "axes and large mowers" in that effort. In fact, as I re-read it, it almost sounds like a Pete Dye type operation where the golf course gets designed as part of the construction process, with only general planning prior to then!
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8823/17066991564_e0cf4cf767.jpg)
Some here have suggested that the land was nowhere near as daunting as Macdonald, Travis, and others described but I think this process likely took some time.
Beyond that, I have a tough time finding hard evidence that the course was "rough routed" prior to December 1906. You and I have very different interpretations of the section in "Scotland's Gift" where I believe he is describing the exact same event when he says "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres" and then a few paragraphs later says 'We obtained an option on the land in November 1906..."
I think the phrase, "Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.", refers to the period after December 1906, particularly the spring of 1907.
I think we can agree that he found the landforms for the Alps, Eden, Cape, and Redan prior to December 1906 but I believe it was during the "2 or 3" initial rides on horseback with Whigham and you believe much more took place before December 1906 but I don't see the evidence of it.
So to answer your direct question, it is possible that the rough routing occurred prior to December 1906 but I don't see hard evidence of it. Now, if you're saying a "rough routing" is finding some ideal holes (which they did) and knowing the general route that they wanted the course to traverse, skirting the bays, incorporating interesting landforms, perhaps spotting and noting some other possible greensites then I think that's likely to have happened, so we're not likely too far off.
But I do think that CBM's main focus was finding land that was suitable in terms of landforms and soils at that juncture, and I'm sure he thought he could figure out the rest later as I described earlier.
-
David,
Along those lines of designing while building, as well as the ongoing selection of the holes to reproduce, it's interesting to note what Walter Travis wrote towards the bottom of the second column in this article published in April 1907.
I'm not sure when he wrote the article, but it was definitely in 1907 as he describes Macdonald's 4 month long visit abroad "the previous winter" earlier in the article.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5326/17897053978_e91b2c1e70_z.jpg)
-
Yes, you can make all the snide comments you want, but....when you say I am unproductive, of course, its hunky dorey. When I reflect your language......over the years, you have certainly set a wide double standard for yourself and others, wouldn't you say?
BTW, there are no straw men in my arguments. They are reasonable interpretations of the written record, even if time may prove them inaccurate.
This also fits a pattern with you. You probably read it, have no reasonable answers (or any unreasonable ones made up) and dismiss my thought because they don't fit your theory. And of course, you blame me for not being able to carry on a civil discussion of historic discovery, which you claim to want. Avoidance has been a great arguing tactic for you that never means you have to say you are wrong.
Rest assured, I probably won't read your responses either, so again, we are simpatico! As I said further down in the parts you didn't read, the generalist architect mindset and the detail lawyer mindset may always have some problems communicating and agreeing, but damn, while disagreeing with you, I did try to find areas of agreement.
-
So to answer your direct question, it is possible that the rough routing occurred prior to December 1906 but I don't see hard evidence of it. Now, if you're saying a "rough routing" is finding some ideal holes (which they did) and knowing the general route that they wanted the course to traverse, skirting the bays, incorporating interesting landforms, perhaps spotting and noting some other possible greensites then I think that's likely to have happened, so we're not likely too far off.
Mike, Isn't generally what I have been saying happened for years?
Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are finally seeing it this way, but I can't help feeling that we ought to have gotten to this point a long, long time ago.
-
Let me try this again...
Along those lines of designing while constructing, as well as the ongoing selection of the holes to reproduce, it's interesting to note what Walter Travis wrote towards the bottom of the second column in this article published in April 1907.
I'm not sure when he wrote the article, but it was definitely in 1907 as he describes Macdonald's 4 month long visit abroad "the previous winter" earlier in the article.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8834/18209380339_a8ba441772_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7756/18207947840_6e25708ffc_z.jpg)
-
So to answer your direct question, it is possible that the rough routing occurred prior to December 1906 but I don't see hard evidence of it. Now, if you're saying a "rough routing" is finding some ideal holes (which they did) and knowing the general route that they wanted the course to traverse, skirting the bays, incorporating interesting landforms, perhaps spotting and noting some other possible greensites then I think that's likely to have happened, so we're not likely too far off.
Mike, Isn't generally what I have been saying happened for years?
Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are finally seeing it this way, but I can't help feeling that we ought to have gotten to this point a long, long time ago.
David,
If you feel that way then I'm glad we're in agreement, finally. We can agree to disagree on when the housing component got dropped, and at this stage I'm simply happy that it did get dropped because the golf course is all the better for it.
-
Jeff, I didn't say you were unproductive, I said the conversation was unproductive. It is. And I didn't (and don't) resort to childish insults and mockery like you do every few posts. There is a pattern. You get angry when I point out factual differences in our positions. You lash out at me, even though oftentimes my version holds up, and oftentimes yours does not. Repeat.
If you cannot control yourself, I won't bother with you.
-
Mike,
I can't make out that article on what we now know is a fuzzy screen....if you could transcript a few of the quotes you are discussing it would be appreciated. Certainly, something from April 1907 has to be of interest.
Second, as to the clearing, I see it as a non issue, based on my experience, and do think continually bringing it up is a distraction. By that time in history, there had been plenty of large clearing projects. Half of New England was cleared a hundred years earlier to make farms, for instance. Lumbering (not quite the same) took out much larger swaths of timber in the Pacific NW. I bet there were experienced land clearers nearby on Long Island or somewhere in upstate NY they could hire if they needed.
In short, it may have been hard, but history shows they did it.
Yours is a more concise and less argumentative repeat of the reasons why we don't believe it had to have been routed in the summer of 1906. In my last post, I put a few more reasons in there. I won't repeat them again, and I think we are all at the stalemate point where the few remaining debaters aren't going to change their minds. And, it really isn't my goal to antagonize David. (Now Pat on the other hand.......)
And, I just saw David's post. As I have mentioned often, I think (?) we all believe he did enough work to get a workable parcel that he was comfortable enough to take and option on, and did find the oft repeated holes he mentioned. We just aren't that far apart to beat each other up. Maybe he did more, maybe he didn't.....
If we have more articles (and by we, I mean everyone who works so hard finding this stuff, not me) let's put them up. Rehashing your position, David's position, or my position which usually falls in the middle, is useless.
Or we decide to take it to 100 pages!
-
Jeff, I didn't say you were unproductive, I said the conversation was unproductive. It is. And I didn't (and don't) resort to childish insults and mockery like you do every few posts. There is a pattern. You get angry when I point out factual differences in our positions. You lash out at me, even though oftentimes my version holds up, and oftentimes yours does not. Repeat.
If you cannot control yourself, I won't bother with you.
That whole post was about trying to explain factual differences between us. One comment, perfectly echoing your language doesn't make me out of control.
Like I said in the next post, I would appreciate a corroborating source on your interpretation of that one line in Scotland's Gift you use to create your rough routing theory. Absent that, I point out that I would take the whole of the record, including CBM's multiple contemporary quotes as the far more reasonable reading.
And, in looking back on the exact words of my post, I never said you said I was unproductive. I only said (at first) that I never focused on your position. That happens a lot, where we talk past each other. I understand it sometimes, but don't understand how you can spend many posts focusing on something I never said, rather than talk facts. I mean, a bit is okay, but really, your whole last post is unproductive to the discussion.......as is the need for this response. And, the response itself! :)
-
Jeff,
I read your post to David and agree with you as well.
I'm singing "Kumbaya" at my desk as I type. ;) ;D
Per your request, here's the April 2007 Travis article, only bigger.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8842/18208329760_437384d121_b.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7772/18208230478_581ac68e5a_b.jpg)
-
Jeff,
You've repeatedly flown off the handle the last few weeks. You felt compelled to banish yourself after making a fool of yourself regarding an issue about which you were 100 percent wrong. Two days ago you felt compelled to delete your comments because you again couldn't control yourself (and again you were 100 percent wrong.) Today you are openly and admittedly mocking me and feel justified for it because of some imaginary wrong.
You have so much hostility toward me that it apparently impacts your ability to think straight. From my perspective, discussing anything with you is pointless.
-
A subtle jab of course, but not mocking you. You have attained many things - the wrath of TePaul and Philly, a certain status on this website, but the victim status you bestow on yourself.
Compelled to delete comments? Just thought better of it. Mocking you in that post? All I did and said is use your exact phrasing and turn it around to fit your post.
And to echo your tone in your TePaul post....I must be doing something right, as David says I am 100% wrong.
(PS, its humor, which you only occasionally seem to understand....I am always surprised but pleased when you make a genuinely funny comment around here.
But, alas, this in not productive, and maybe we should both recuse ourselves. Unless you have a better solution. What do you think?
-
I understand humor Jeff. You just aren't nearly as funny as you seem to think you are. You flip-flop between little angry tirades and comments you consider humor, but it just doesn't come off that well online. Besides, I focus my attempts at humor on friends and people whom I respect, and take their comments according to the same standard.
As for my "solution," I'll probably just continue to research and analyze the history of golf course architecture in America, and as a result we will all learn more about it. As for you, I guess you'll probably go on with whatever it is you think you do to contribute to these threads.
-
Well, David, we all appreciate the graphic and research work you do, and this thread is most enjoyable when you, Steve, Bryan, et. al provide new information. So, have at it, and I will certainly reduce my participation. I have offered some insights, and seem to have a position somewhere between you and Mike. But, overall, others have produced more good info.
-
Jeff,
If it wasn't for your real world experience I would have never understood that a course could get surveyed for golf in dense growth. Ironically, that seems to have led to more general agreement here than would have been possible otherwise. Thanks.
-
Mike Cirba, what you choose to "understand" seems to have more to do with who presents the information, rather than the validity of what is actually presented. But if it took Jeff telling you that your impenetrable jungle theory was misguided in order for you to finally move off that issue, then I too am grateful for that contribution.
But the real reason we are close to an agreement is after all of these years you finally seem to be moving toward a reading of the facts which is at least somewhat consistent with Macdonald's own version of what happened, as expressed in Scotland's Gift and elsewhere.
Let's hope this time it sticks.
-
Rich Goodale,
We're still waiting for you to tell us why you stated that the land where the clubhouse currently sits was "ungolfable" ?
Certainly, you've had enough time to gather information and support for your claim.
You made a definitive statement that the land where the clubhouse currently sits, was "ungolfable".
It's clearly some of the best land on the property, so tell us, in plain Engish or alternatively, in sarcastic tones, why you claim that the land is "ungolfable" ?
I also asked you, how many times have you played NGLA, yet you've failed to respond.
Surely, the answer to such a simple and direct question doesn't require much in the way of contemplative thought.
And it certainly shouldn't tax your memory.
You stuck your sarcastic two cents in, now pay the piper.
-
One of the things thats stikes me is that NGLA was Macdonald's first attempt at designing his "ideal" golf holes. (Chicago GC does not count.) Once he had "perfected" his dream at National, he probably felt much more confident in "seeing" the holes on all of his future sites. NGLA almost certainly convinced him that he was right, these holes would make a great course and be well-received. It would seem to me that this would naturally lead to being able to find his holes more easily.
-
A while back I provided CBM's own chronology of events at NGLA as set out in Scotland's Gift and added some dates and other material to give the contents context. Below is the next draft. As I said I would, I've added dates for CBM's overseas trip abroad and I have changed one of the listings from the December articles to track the Sun article as opposed to the Tribune article.
_______________________________________________________
October 1905
Dean Alvord purchased the 2500+ acre Shinnecock Hills parcel from an English syndicate. By the end of 1905, the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty company had been formed to develop the property.
Late 1905 or Early 1906
Shinnecock Hills was also very attractive, but I preferred not getting too close to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.
The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.
We offered SHPB $200 dollars per acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.
February - June 13, 1906
CBM (and Whigham) traveled abroad, studying the great holes overseas. (Arrived in Liverpool 2/18/1906. Departed Liverpool 06/05/1906.)
Between mid-June 1906 and mid-October 1906
However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay and laying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Every one thought it more or less worthless. It abounded with bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way one could get over the ground was on ponies.
So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.
Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.
The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose.
October 16, 1906
The Boston Globe reported that that MacDonald had secured 250 acres in the Shinnecock Hills, adjoining SHGC, stretching along Peconic Bay to the north, and skirting the railroad to the south; that he and Whigham had been over the property and that Travis had been invited to consult; that other experts would be consulted; that the contours were similar to SHGC; that that elevation maps had already been created and sent to overseas advisors; and that construction would not start until Spring. Other newspapers reported the purchase, even though it was not yet complete.
Between mid-June 1906 and November/December 1906
Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile. The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, there thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us-- a much desired situation.
When playing golf you want to alone with Nature.
November/December1906
We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906 . . .
December 3, 1906
CBM wrote to James Stillman (and presumably the other founders) informing them: "After one year's study and search, I have purchased 200 acres of land in Shinnecock Hills bordering on the Peconic Bay, for the sum of $40,000 --land admirably adapted to our purpose." He also provided many of the same details that would appear in the newspaper accounts a few weeks later, and noted that Travis, Emmett, Whigham, Chauncey, and others had already been over the property.
December 15-17, 1906
Various New York newspaper articles reported that Macdonald had secured the property and provided a general description of CBM's plan, including among other things: mention of the Alps, Redan, Cape, and Eden, along a mention that other features existed for other holes CBM had in mind; mention that the course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile; mention that the course would start and finish near the Shinnecock Inn, mention that "the exact lines would not be set out until the committee has finished it plans," mention that a committee had been appointed to lay out the course, and that they had been given three (or five) months to stake out the course and after that a plaster model would be created to aid in construction; etc. [For exact details, please see the articles themselves.]
Spring 1907
We . . . took title to the property in the spring of 1907.
Immediately we commenced development.
________________________________________________________________
Again, this version exactly tracks what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift, and what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift matches the historical record.
-
David,
Are you contending that it took him almost a year to design the course prior to the start of construction?
Needless to say, I disagree with your interpretation of what Macdonald wrote in "Scotland's Gift" and I'll provide what I believe is a more accurate timeline tomorrow.
-
Mike,
1. I don't know the exact date CBM and HJW first rode the land, and unlike you I won't pretend that I do. As I understand the historical record, it must have been some time between between mid-June 1906 and mid-October 1906.
2. What CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift should not even be in dispute at this point. What he wrote in the section in question is set out above, in blue, in its entirety and in the exact order presented. I am not interested in seeing you try to juggle his order to your liking yet again.
If readers so wish, they can compare my portrayal of his chronology with your jumbled chonology from some pages back and decide for themselves which one is truer to the historical record.
ADDED: Here is the link to Mike's Chronology if anyone is interested in comparison the two. http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60926.msg1449959.html#msg1449959
-
David Moriarty,
What's with your constantly defensive, overly sensitive, and needlessly argumentative and adversarial approach here? One would swear you're being forced to participate at gunpoint.
In the past 24 hours you twice scolded me for agreeing with you, chased a professional golf course architect who actually has routed and surveyed many courses from the discussion, told Jim Sullivan if he wanted to know more about the gap between your interpretation of the agreement and subsequent events that he should go to law school, and then act victimized when anyone acts in kind to the boorish tone that you set here.
Perhaps that's due to your real reasons for participation? You zealously present yourself as the staunch defender of the true historical record yet time and again others call you on your interpretations and assumptions that you have convinced yourself are based on the only reasonable way to fit the evidence together, and the fact is it is only your opinion. When challenged you act hurt and then inevitably call into question the motivations, intelligence, and judgement of your challenger. That is not discussion, David, and this is a "Discussion Group"
The other day, in a moment of candor you wrote; "My reason for being in this conversation it to put an end to this silly notion that CBM originally intended a housing component at NGLA that didn't get dropped until later in the planning process. Surely no one but Mike still believes this is a real thing."
When I came back to this discussion group I decided to ignore the personal insults and invective and only focus discussion on presenting factual evidence and asking questions, offering opinions when I felt justified, but also accepting that part of unearthing these things involves some trial and error of theories. It's part of why I don't respond often to Patrick's posts, which have very little in the way of factual basis but much in the way of personal opinion and negative bomb-throwing.
If you are only here to prove me wrong you're futilely wasting your time. I've been wrong countless times and will be wrong in the future. I've tried in these discussions to admit it upfront when proven wrong and thought that might set a more conciliatory framework for further discussion and learning.
Unlike you, I'm not here to prove you wrong, David, but to discuss and learn about historical golf course architecture. But I also do believe you're wrong in your interpretation of events in the timeline and I think your mis-reading of "Scotland's Gift" has led you to also
use a very faulty October Boston news report to prop up that misinterpretation as I'll explain shortly.
If you mis-spoke related to your motives here, then lets drop all the personal attacks and other BS and discuss facts in a civil manner. Some of your close friends may believe your antics here are justifiable based on past perceived wrongs but I think most everyone else just holds their noses and moves on. That's a shame, frankly.
-
The line about law school was funny...truly funny. So take that Jeff...David has a sense of humor.
Speaking of Jeff, I'm sure you put David in a real bind by agreeing with his interpretation of the Reverter clause referenced by the developer. How could you be so consistently wrong on everything you've ever said on here and then get that one right?
By the way, has Pat gotten his answer yet when he demanded Bryan show when anyone ever put restrictions on the property...from post 1011..."More speculation on your part.
Would you cite, anywhere, where the developer restricted his use of the 205 acres."
I can see Pat frothing at the mouth and David scratching his head...
This is somewhat entertaining...so do you think the routing was a concession to the links CBM had studied in the UK?
-
Get off your high horse Mike. You're getting lost in brambles of your own creation.
Jim, I figured you would take that comment in the spirit in which it was intended.
-
0n March 7, 1906 in a circular letter to Walter Travis and other interested parties, Charles Blair Macdonald wrote from abroad;
”It is impossible to settle the distances and nature of the eighteen holes until the opinions of the best players have been collected and the whole matter thoroughly ventilated in the press of both countries. I intend to devote two months to the task of procuring and examining all the data on this side of the Atlantic, and shall be able when I return in June to lay before you plans and topographical maps of all the best holes in the country so that we shall have a number to choose from and so be able to scheme for a national course…”
In that same letter he notes that ”Several sites have been considered, and the choice now lies at three locations at varying distance from New York.”
Upon his return in mid-June 1906 (thanks for providing the dates of his trip yesterday, David) an article stated, “Charles B. Macdonald, who has been the rounds of the Scotch and English links in search of model holes for the proposed ideal American links, is back with a portfolio filled with sketches and diagrams, while his head is teeming with ideas for the course that he has assimilated. The best holes are indexed in his mind, but the three or four to be resembled exactly have not been picked out, nor will they be until the ground is located for the new American course.”
The article goes on to quote Macdonald, ”Prestwick and St. Andrews abound in lovely holes, while Sandwich was prolific in ideas. I have draughtsmen now making exact diagrams of certain holes at Prestwick and St. Andrews. I have formulated plans for more than eighteen holes, the last choice to be dependent on the ground selected, and the inspiration for the plans has been supplied in many instances by links not in the championship group.”
On October 15, 1906 the following article appeared in the Boston Globe.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7739/17578577633_ef573c1d4a.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8854/18198576275_bb212d3682_z.jpg)
I think it’s important to examine the article critically. First, the very premise that Macdonald purchased land in October 1906, much less 250 acres is flat out wrong. His agreement to secure property wasn’t until mid December 1906 and the actual purchase came in June 1907.
Next, the plot of ground described by the article is the entire area of Sebonac Neck! It does not describe some particular area selected by Macdonald but the entire peninsula.
Most importantly, it does mention Macdonald’s collaboration requiring “the opinions of expert players both here and on the other side” which are as of yet to be sifted and analyzed. It states that “Maps showing all the undulations and grades in feet have been executed…” and mailed by Macdonald to various luminaries.
To believe that Macdonald is referring to a detailed contour map of the Sebonac Neck property requires belief that Macdonald had someone, likely Seth Raynor, create that contour map prior to the supposed “purchase”. Yet there is no evidence of that.
In “Scotland’s Gift” Macdonald wrote the following about Raynor’s role.
“Employing him to survey our Sebonac
Neck property, I was so much impressed with his dependability
and seriousness I had him make a contour map and later gave him
my surveyor's maps which I had brought from Scotland and England,
telling him that I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to
those maps. For three to four years he worked by my side.”
Now, it is certainly possible that after Macdonald’s return in mid-June 1906 that he rode around the Sebonac Neck property with Whigham a few times, then paid Raynor to first survey the Sebonac Neck property and then was so impressed he paid him make a contour map, all on land he had no agreement or title to, and then sent those to experts here and abroad all in the next few months leading to an agreement to purchase land by mid-October 1906 but other than this flawed article, there is no real evidence of that happening. It certainly wasn’t reported by any of the New York City newspapers.
Years later, in CBM's 1912 Letter to the Founders, he includes this portion;
"We have also been helped by some of
the most eminent men in the game of golf
abroad, who have taken a most friendly
interest in the undertaking, and I have to
thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson,
Mr. John L. Low, Mr. 'Harold
H. Hilton, Mr. J. Sutherland, Mr. W. T.
Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles
Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. Alexander
MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H
S. Everard, for the maps, photographs,
and suggestions which they have given us.""
No mention of them evaluating the Sebonac Neck property, or looking at topographical maps of Sebonac Neck CBM sent to them prior to his purchase. I think the writer, who seems confused on a number of points as seen below (i.e. size and location of property, purchase vs offer, etc.) also misunderstood that the maps in question were likely the draughsman’s reproductions of famous holes abroad that were intended to be copied in whole and part on the new land in question as part of that sifting and analysis.
You’ll notice that he talks about the ongoing correspondence between CBM and expert opinions here and abroad but then seems to interpret those drawings as being of the new property. I don’t believe they were.
In fact, the whole premise that Macdonald had reached agreement with the Real Estate Company by mid-October 1906 seems wholly incorrect.
In late October, 1906 the Lesley Cup (or “Inter-City”) matches were held at Macdonald’s home club, Garden City. On November 1st, 1906, the New York Sun in reporting on those matches included this snippet;
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
It’s clear here that Macdonald is still in negotiations with the Real Estate Company, and is using the old ploy of suggesting that he’s looking at other sites as a way to bargain price. There is little doubt at this time that Macdonald had already located, rode, and determined that the Sebonac Neck site was what he wanted but was still clearly in negotiations. In fact, it wasn’t until later that month that agreement was reached and the papers were signed on the Friday afternoon of December 14th and reported extensively in the New York City newspapers that weekend, an important landmark still missing from David’s timeline.
I think a far more likely scenario is that after being rebuffed in his attempt to purchase land near the Shinnecock Canal, Macdonald focused on alternatives, or was suggested by the Real Estate Company to consider alternatives where they weren’t planning to build housing. I think it makes sense that timeframe would have been in August/September 1906. HJ Whigham later wrote in his 1939 eulogy of Macdonald;
“I went out with Macdonald to ride over the land which is now the National, and on coming back to the Shinnecock Club for lunch we found four elderly members awaiting us with dire prophecies of what would happen if we selected a site so near their own club, one of the first three golf clubs in America and the most fashionable. Yet on that first Saturday of September in 1907 there were only four old members in their sixties or seventies in the clubhouse, and they confessed that they had to contribute a pretty penny each year to keep things going."
While his 1907 date is inconsistent with the timeline, it seems odd that the whole premise is based on “what would happen IF we selected a site” so near Shinnecock. By 1907 they HAD selected a site near Shinnecock and by that time would not be riding over “land which is now the National”, but a completely cleared tract of land where the greens had already been built and was fast BECOMING the National.”
Macdonald wrote a similar account 20 some years after the fact in his 1928 book;
” I remember well when in the autumn of 1907 with little or nothing
to show but n weary waste of land with a beautiful sunset and
stretches of water and meadow I was enthusiastically declaiming
to a few friends whom I had asked for luncheon at the Shinnecock
Hills Golf Club the possibility of the future classical course, an intimate
friend of mine, Urban H. Broughton, left the table. Later he
confided to John Grier that he feared. because of his affection for
me and believing that I would be so much disappointed, he would
drop a tear.
Again, by the fall of 1907 Macdonald had already cleared the Sebonac Neck property and was well on his way, having just completed building the greens. Wouldn’t his statement make more sense in September of 1906 while considering purchasing the land in question, probably buoyed by finding the sites for Alps and Redan and Eden holes, yet largely invisible to those sitting with him over lunch as they surveyed the distant site? Might Whigham later have repeated that erroneous date?
Isn't it likely that the Boston Globe writer got wind of the fact that Macdonald, Whigham, and Travis had been looking at the Sebonac Neck site in previous weeks and were enthused at the possibilities? Might Travis or someone else associated with the endeavor have provided information that was both incomplete and misinterpreted?
All of this disagreement seems to based on David trying to buoy his interpretation of “Scotland’s Gift”’s 2-page, 20+ years after the fact summary of events as a strict chronology.
As such, he seems to think that CBM mentioning “the company agreed to sell us 205 acres” and “We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906...” as separate events with some significant amount of time between them. I think that’s unlikely in real terms for the reasons outlined above. Of course, there is always some gap between agreement and paperwork but if David’s interpretation is correct, why would it take over two months from agreement to closing on the deal when the Real Estate Company agreed to give them “latitude” in determining borders and Macdonald was excited to charge ahead?
Indeed, a strict chronological interpretation of the events summarized in Macdonald’s book would have us believe that CBM located and laid out his Alps, Redan, and Eden holes some time after the Shinneock Inn burned down in 1909? (it actually burned in 1908..comment mine) and Patrick’s new clubhouse was finally built on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay, as seen below. ;)
The good news here is that I think David and I pretty much agree on the rest of the timeline after December 15th, 1906. :)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7737/17460980634_0309866f55_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8805/18083795185_8c52ba10c9_z.jpg)
-
You should probably be using this Dec. 3, 1906 date as the latest limit for when an agreement for sale was in place. In all likelihood, it was probably a good bit before that date.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-03%20at%207.58.44%20AM_zpswlrbnkcc.png)
(Image borrowed from the MacDonald Timeline Project)
-
As far as the mid-October reporting, the relevant piece is the Oct. 13, 1906 Evening Telegram article, from which it appears all of the information in the Boston Globe article was taken.
Instead of discounting both articles due to the minor inaccuracies, why don't we look at the basic substance they contain, namely:
1. CBM had secured a parcel of land on Sebonac Neck.
2. Whigham had accompanied CBM several times to "the scene of operations."
Along with the Frick letter above, there is strong evidence that the agreement to purchase was in place well before mid-December. Perhaps they were just waiting for the lawyers to draw up the papers.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-03%20at%208.07.47%20AM_zpsjzyp0jvz.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-03%20at%208.08.29%20AM_zpsfh0uilvx.png)
-
Sven,
That's a very good point.
In fact, if an agreement was already in place between Macdonald and the Real Estate Company by October 15, 1906 then why did he wait until December 3rd to notify those who had invested in the deal?
He mentions that this agreement has come "after one year's study and search", and we know he tells us in Scotland's Gift when he began that search.
We also know he signed the deal on December 14th, 1906.
-
An additional letter from CBM to Frick (same source, dated Nov. 7, 1908) adds a good bit of color to a couple of other items that have been discussed on this thread.
1. CBM describes the drought conditions that hampered construction efforts.
2. He notes the course should be ready to be tentatively opened in 1909, but that there was still work to be done to bring it to perfection.
3. He describes how adjustments would be made in both the bunkering and hole lengths depending upon actual play, particularly how the ball rolled on the ground once the turf was in a condition to allow them to study play.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-03%20at%208.21.10%20AM_zpsvhrytpzy.png)
-
Sven,
That's a very good point.
In fact, if an agreement was already in place between Macdonald and the Real Estate Company by October 15, 1906 then why did he wait until December 3rd to notify those who had invested in the deal?
We know he signed the deal on December 14th, 1906.
Mike:
I think you're reading too much into it. It could be there were Founders who knew about it as soon as it happened. It may be that Frick (and others) were guys he didn't see every week, and thus required a letter.
It could also be that between his new job at RH Thomas & Co., stomping over Sebonac Neck, sending off drawings and descriptions to folks abroad and settling the terms of a 200+ acre purchase he got a little behind in his correspondence.
Sven
-
Sven,
Great stuff, thanks for sharing.
Please see my addition of Macdonald ' s mention of how long the process took in my previous post.
-
Sven,
Great stuff, thanks for sharing.
Please see my addition of Macdonald ' s mention of how long the process took in my previous post.
Not sure what you're getting at with the process timing issue.
Also, I'm surprised you hadn't seen the Frick letter. Mark B. has done great work on the CBM timeline, and all of this info has been out there for a while.
Sven
-
Sven,
My reference to the process time is Macdonald's comment that his agreement came "after one year's study and search".
In Scotland's Gift he tells us determined that he wanted to purchase land in the Shinnecock Hills a few weeks after the Brooklyn company had made the purchase. David's timeline has that to be late 1905 at the earliest.
As far as your surprise, recall I'd been away from GCA for some time. If you can direct me to Mark's work I'd be most appreciative.
***EDIT*** I found it, thanks!
Thanks.
-
I think you should take the "one year" as general guideline, not a specific, hard and fast time period.
It could have been 10 months, it could have been 14 months.
-
Sven,
It's also interesting that he talks about the insects in that November 1908 letter to Frick, as follows, again sourced as per your prior post;
Macdonald concludes his letter by noting "a great deal of talk about mosquitoes being a pest on Sebonac Neck. I should like to state here that last year when we first did the clearing, I believe every known insect that came out of the ark was on Sebonac Neck. However, with the clearing of the course, the filling up and draining of the low ground where there was standing water, etc., we scarcely had any insects this year."
-
Sven,
It's also interesting that he talks about the insects in that November 1908 letter to Frick, as follows, again sourced as per your prior post;
Macdonald concludes his letter by noting "a great deal of talk about mosquitoes being a pest on Sebonac Neck. I should like to state here that last year when we first did the clearing, I believe every known insect that came out of the ark was on Sebonac Neck. However, with the clearing of the course, the filling up and draining of the low ground where there was standing water, etc., we scarcely had any insects this year."
Mike:
Not sure where your mosquito fetish comes from, but who really cares?
I think you repeatedly make the mistake of ascribing consistent conditions across a 200+ acre parcel of property, particularly a piece of property with water frontage, inland areas, elevation and low lying swampy pieces.
Were there areas that would have been hard to move around on due to brush? Probably. But there were probably some open areas (similar to what was depicted in the paintings earlier in the thread) and we know there were paths through parts of the property.
Were there bugs? Definitely, but those bugs may have been there due to a particularly rainy year in 1906 and/or 1907. Its possible the 1908 drought was both a blessing and a curse, giving them grass issues but curing their bug problems.
Sven
-
Sven,
I have little doubt that Macdonald and Whigham had been to the "site of operations several times" (or at least "2 or 3") by the time of the mid-October articles and that Travis had already been "invited to act as consulting engineer". That seems consistent with them looking at the site in earnest in the August/September timeframes I had posited as those first horse rides.
However, so much else is inaccurate about the article (including in this one the purchase price) that it seems that the agreement was reported somewhat presumptuously at best.
I do think it's interesting that this article goes into greater detail about the subsequent process to gather opinions and defer any construction "until the suggestions of as many experts as possible have been received", again indicating ongoing correspondence.
As far as my "mosquito fetish" as you term it, I'm only reliant on first-hand accounts by Macdonald, Travis, and writers such as van Tassel Sutphen for their descriptions of the land in its raw, pre-cleared state.
***ADDED*** Sven, if an agreement was in place prior to November, 1906, why would Macdonald be quoted at Garden City during the Lesley Cup (InterCity) matches in late October as saying he's looking at different sites (i.e. Montauk)? It certainly sounds like anything but a done deal at that point.
-
I re-read The Evangelist last night, and a few things caught my eye, which might be worth discussing among those who have researched and know more than I:
On the blueprint, a strong line is drawn in that same yellow pencil right where Sebonack road is now. On the 1904 USGS maps, there is a stub in about the same place. It would appear that while giving CBM the right to choose his 205 acres, there were some conditions. In addition to the reversions clause, I gather he was required to maintain at least some access to the future Sabin property, which they still owned. It would be interesting to see the actual purchase agreement to see what else was in there.
I re-read the whole NGLA chapter, starting on page 61. He says CBM tried to buy SH, the land company who controlled the land could have made a nice profit, and the members pressured them to reject the sale. He notes in italics, but not quotes, that the members were outraged that CBM had the "audacity to purchase out course right out from under us."
Did I miss this discussion?
The narrative on Raynor is confusing, but he (as you might read in Scotland's Gift, depending on interpretation) seems to put Raynor out there for "months of planning" before the purchase of the land. He claims it was CBM and Raynor who went over the property looking for sites to build holes, not the committee. The committee was asked on board later, according to George.
I also don't recall these passages being discussed at length here, and am not sure the narrative is as detailed and time oriented as some of us have been, but thought it was worth brining up.
-
Mike:
I don't know why CBM didn't acknowledge the deal at GCGC. Perhaps he wasn't ready to let it out to the press, and preferred to contact his Founding Members directly first (ala the Frick letter). Perhaps they had a deal in principal, and were still working out details. Perhaps he was still thinking about Montauk (and had the ability to do so only having an option), although I find that unlikely as he is noted elsewhere as saying Montauk was never really in the conversation.
As for the mosquitoes, I stand by my assertion that you talk about the property in a way that makes it sound like all 200+ acres were exactly the same, covered in brush, swampy and bug ridden. Yes, there were low-lying areas and swamps. But to continue to talk as if the entire piece of land was consistently unsuitable is intentionally misleading.
Sven
-
Sven,
I think the most likely scenario is that no agreement was yet in place and it was still being negotiated, particularly the price.
As far as the condition of the property prior to clearing, I'm only quoting what CBM, Travis, and others said. What contemporaneous evidence exists that contradicts their accounts that somehow makes me quoting them "intentionally misleading" from your perspective?
-
In fact, if an agreement was already in place between Macdonald and the Real Estate Company by October 15, 1906 then why did he wait until December 3rd to notify those who had invested in the deal?
Again, Mike, you seem to be ignoring CBM's own words. According to CBM's account, there was a gap between the time the developer agreed to sell CBM the property, and when CBM obtained an option.
1. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose . . .
2. "Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted . . . ."
3. "We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906 . . ."
As for rest of the information in the mid-October Articles, I agree with Sven. There is too much accurate and detailed information for you to dismiss the articles as you do.
As for your convoluted attempt to try explain away the reference to maps showing the undulations and elevations, you've said it all before and the article does not support your stretched reading. And, you still haven't explained why CBM would be sending John Low detailed diagrams and explanations of the Road Hole. CBM's hubris was famous, but I don't think it went quite that far.
Regarding your "one year" theory you are again trying to make something out of nothing.
-
As far as the condition of the property prior to clearing, I'm only quoting what CBM, Travis, and others said. What contemporaneous evidence exists that contradicts their accounts that somehow makes me quoting them "intentionally misleading" from your perspective?
Mike:
You are missing the point. You are extrapolating bits and pieces from those contemporaneous reports to describe the entire parcel in one broad stroke. I have no argument with what was reported, just that it doesn't describe the entirety of the property.
Sven
-
Sven,
That's because they all described the entire parcel that way. They didn't say "some parts".
The realty company determined it was worthless for real estate. If it was the lovely Meadowlands overlookong the placid blue waters of the bay depicted in those paintings Steve posted how could that be possible?
-
Sven, A very minor point. The NY Herald article was from Monday, October 15th, not the 13th. (It is tough to read the date. I had it as Oct. 18th, but the newspaper indicates it was Monday, and that was the 15th.)
That weekend Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, and a number of prominent golfers (including at least one other NGLA Founder) had competed in a three day tournament at Myopia, so I imagine that when this issue was being discussed.
The fact that the article lists out the names of CBM's advisors overseas leaves little doubt in my mind that the information came straight from Macdonald or Whigham.
EDITED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE PAPER Was there a Evening Telegram article too?
_________________________________________
Mike, I don't remember which one, but one of the descriptions of the property also mentioned meadows.
But who cares? It isn't the historical description, it is what you do with the description. They mention brambles and mosquitos, and you insists this meant that they couldn't even have placed stakes on the ground to mark off the rough boundaries of the parcel. That is "intentionally misleading" or at the very least, intentionally misreading.
-
Sven,
That's because they all described the entire parcel that way. They didn't say "some parts".
The realty company determined it was worthless for real estate. If it was the lovely Meadowlands overlookong the placid blue waters of the bay depicted in those paintings Steve posted how could that be possible?
You really don't see what you're doing here, do you?
-
Mike,
Agree with the above by Sven and David. Someone posted a property line and parcel map of the area from up to 100 years before. The USGS survey may had come before. Some of the land nearly was similar in condition to NGLA, I am sure.
By then, they had long known how to survey in tough areas, hilly areas, swamp areas, etc. It could be done, but it might have taken twice as long as meadows......
-
Sven, Another change. I think the article you posted is from the NY Herald, not the Evening Telegram. And the date change above.
-
Didn't I previously concede based on Jeff's expert opinion that the property could have been surveyed prior, even if the entire site was covered in thick brambles?
Did you miss that Sven? What could possibly be wrong with pointing out that it was a tough site to work with which was a fact mentioned by Macdonald, Travis, and others?
-
Sven, Another change. I think the article you posted is from the NY Herald, not the Evening Telegram. And the date change above.
David:
I'm looking at it right now. It is the Evening Telegram, and it was the 15th, which was a Monday.
Sven
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-03%20at%2010.50.44%20AM_zpse6mbd7im.png)
-
That weekend Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, and a number of prominent golfers (including at least one other NGLA Founder) had competed in a three day tournament at Myopia, so I imagine that when this issue was being discussed.
The fact that the article lists out the names of CBM's advisors overseas leaves little doubt in my mind that the information came straight from Macdonald or Whigham.
And two weeks later after the Lesley Cup at Garden City Macdonald was reported as saying he was still looking at sites in Montauk and near Good Ground in the western Shinnecock Hills from which we can reasonably infer that no agreement had yet been reached, much less for 100k as that report in October stated and that negotiations were continuing.
-
Didn't I previously concede based on Jeff's expert opinion that the property could have been surveyed prior, even if the entire site was covered in thick brambles?
Did you miss that Sven? What could possibly be wrong with pointing out that it was a tough site to work with which was a fact mentioned by Macdonald, Travis, and others?
I didn't miss it Mike. But you're still missing the broader picture, in that you have a habit of missing the finer points when it suits your purposes.
Like your statement a few posts back that the property was worthless for RE purposes. Obviously it wasn't worthless. It may not have been as valuable in the eyes of the developer as the property to the west that was plotted, but it wasn't worthless.
The repeated nature of these types comments and how they fit into your overall depiction of the project has a self-serving aura.
Sven
-
That weekend Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, and a number of prominent golfers (including at least one other NGLA Founder) had competed in a three day tournament at Myopia, so I imagine that when this issue was being discussed.
The fact that the article lists out the names of CBM's advisors overseas leaves little doubt in my mind that the information came straight from Macdonald or Whigham.
And two weeks later after the Lesley Cup at Garden City Macdonald was reported as saying he was still looking at sites in Montauk and near Good Ground in the western Shinnecock Hills from which we can reasonably infer that no agreement had yet been reached, much less for 100k as that report in October stated and that negotiations were continuing.
$100 K for the property, or $100 K for the course (property, construction, etc.). Your read is very different than mine on that description.
-
Sven,
Macdonald said that "every one thought the property was more or less worthless." That's a direct quote.
Nuance that however you like into "finer points" but your issue is then with him, not me.
-
Sven,
Macdonald said that "every one thought the property was more or less worthless." That's a direct quote.
Nuance that however you like into "finer points" but your issue is then with him, not me.
Did CBM think it was "worthless" when he purchased it for $200 an acre? Seems like he paid too much.
Sven
-
Sven,
Honestly? He saw the potential for golf due to landforms and soils. That was worth it to him.
-
Sven,
Honestly? He saw the potential for golf due to landforms and soils. That was worth it to him.
Good, we're making progress. 30 pages ago you would have noted that there was also potential for 60 1.5 acre plots of land so that the likes of Henry Frick could build a cabin on mosquito infested swamp land.
Have a good day. I'm off to the course.
Sven
-
Sven,
Macdonald said that "every one thought the property was more or less worthless." That's a direct quote.
Nuance that however you like into "finer points" but your issue is then with him, not me.
Did CBM think it was "worthless" when he purchased it for $200 an acre? Seems like he paid too much.
Sven
I think he wrote somewhere he got a good deal on it, making it a sound investment. OF course, I think that was in subscription letter, so I doubt he would write he got screwed.....I don't understand the back and forth on the wording of this. Land is always worth what someone is willing to pay for it......
As to mosquitos, I have seen a big difference in cleared land and heavy timber, and they do reduce. A bit surprising that mosquitos were bad in a drought year in 1908......but can be in swamps. Either way, I am sure CBM was downplaying it in his promotion of the course.
Enjoy the golf. Around here, we are slowly getting back to dry enough to play courses....except mine of course, which have superior engineering!
-
Sven,
Here's what was written about the site in the Walker Cup program by the gentleman who is writing the new National Golf Links of America history book;
The site was right. It was not perfect; far from it really. In order to effectively transplant or reproduce the great golf holes of the world, the raw, over-grown, bogged-down canvas would require considerable preparation. Still, Macdonald and his colleagues obtained an option on the land in November 1906 and took ownership of 205.0284 acres on June 11, 1907 for the price of $200 an acre. It was a deal in which everybody won. The Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company was able to sell at a profit land that even it knew had little foreseeable use. In a letter to its shareholders, the seller wrote; "Most of this property is lowland, some of it swamp. There are but three high points taken and a large part would not be suitable for building purposes."
Similarly, the deal was favorable to Macdonald, as he was allowed to cherry-pick which 205 acres of the 450-acre plot he wanted.
As far as Mr. Frick wanting a cabin to stay in during his visits from Boston, do you think today's wealthy members at Pine Valley or Augusta seek mansions with sterling views while visiting those clubs?
Again, your problem is with CBM and what he wrote and said and proposed. Don't shoot the messenger.
Enjoy your round!
-
Sven, Another change. I think the article you posted is from the NY Herald, not the Evening Telegram. And the date change above.
David:
I'm looking at it right now. It is the Evening Telegram, and it was the 15th, which was a Monday.
Sven
Weird. The identical article (with a slightly different headline) ran on the same date in the Herald.
"C.B. Macdonald's pet scheme to plan. . ." etc.
-
More about the site from the Walker Cup program;
It was a 450 acre insect-infested expanse, a wasteland inhabited only by swamp bogs and thickets of berry bushes. The land, so inhospitable that Macdonald and his future son-in-law, Jiim Whigham, could only inspect the property on horseback, was entirely overgrown.
I'm assuming that was all just a re-stating of what Macdonald wrote in "Scotland's Gift".
-
I'm assuming that was all just a re-stating of what Macdonald wrote in "Scotland's Gift".
What? You think the author was out there with them and reporting on personal experience?
-
And two weeks later after the Lesley Cup at Garden City Macdonald was reported as saying he was still looking at sites in Montauk and near Good Ground in the western Shinnecock Hills from which we can reasonably infer that no agreement had yet been reached, much less for 100k as that report in October stated and that negotiations were continuing.
You should try to keep track of your own story, Mike. A few pages back you insisted that the CBM had already determined that this was the property he wanted, and that he was just dickering on the price.
I think we all agree that no final agreement had been signed by mid-October 1906. But it seems that the developer had at least agreed in principle to sell CBM land for his golf course, even if they had not yet worked out the final price or even the final acreage. Or it could be as Sven suggested, that CBM was just playing coy until the final paperwork was complete and the deal finalized.
-
Again, Mike, you seem to be ignoring CBM's own words. According to CBM's account, there was a gap between the time the developer agreed to sell CBM the property, and when CBM obtained an option.
1. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose . . .
2. "Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted . . . ."
3. "We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906 . . ."
As for rest of the information in the mid-October Articles, I agree with Sven. There is too much accurate and detailed information for you to dismiss the articles as you do.
David,
Let's assume for a moment that this article is factually correct and your interpretation of it is spot on and and that prior to any agreement with the Real Estate Company Macdonald had the land of Sebonac Neck surveyed, a contour map created, blueprints prepared, and then mailed abroad to the folks described in the articles.
How does that square with CBM's description of what happened prior to the Agreement in Scotland's Gift?
Having the stage all set and definitely knowing what I wanted
to accomplish, with maps, sketches, and descriptions of all the more
famous holes in Great Britain, and having the $60,000-which
later was increased to $70,000-subscribed, I continued my search
to find the property on which it was possible to build the classic
golf course.
Cape Cod was very alluring. but it was too remote to attract
enough men to join the club to bring in sufficient income to preserve
it.
The land between Amagansett and Montauk was ideal, and it
would have been easy to purchase for a reasonable sum, but then,
there was no soil on which grass would grow. It would be necessary
to top dress at least sixty acres of land. To do that with six
inches of top soil would cost over $5,000 an acre. This was prohibitive.
Note: he says he is discussing his options after returning from abroad with his sketches, etc. in mid-June 1906.
He continues...
Shinnecock Hills also was very attractive. but I preferred not
getting too close to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The Shinnecock
Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a
London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn
company a few weeks before I determined that we should build
a course there if we could secure the land. I offered the Shinnecock
Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 per acre for some
120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great
Peconic Bay but the owners refused it.
Again, I'd note that either the initial sales offer for the land near the Canal happened after his return from abroad in mid-June 1906 or this is not a strict chronology, or possibly both.
Continuing...
However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac
Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Day and lying
between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property
was little known and had never been surveyed. Everyone
thought it more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs and swamps
and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry,
blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only
way one could get over the ground was on ponies. So Jim Whigham
and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the
contours of the ground. Finally we determined it was what we
wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It adjoined the Shinnecock
Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205
acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose.
My plain reading of what Macdonald wrote here prior to agreement is that he and Whigham rode over the land two or three times studying the contours of the ground, determined it was what they wanted provided they could get it reasonably and the company agreed and let them locate it as best to suit their purpose.
No mention of the creation of contour maps, ongoing overseas consultations, or much else that's in that article.
Now, your point that a verbal agreement by definition proceeds a written one securing the property is self-defining. Of course one has to agree in concept before drafting a paper contract but this discussion is about what took place before the agreement, and when the agreement took place. We know by December 3rd from a letter to Frick that CBM had an agreement. We know by reports from the Lesley Cup on November 1st, 1906 that he was still looking at other sites and threatening to go elsewhere if he couldn't get a good price. We know he signed papers on December 14, 1906.
If all of that extensive, time-consuming activity of creating contour maps suitable for golf course architecture, down to 2 or 3 foot levels included in the article took place prior to the agreement don't you find it curious that there is no mention of that in "Scotland's Gift"?
As for your supposed timeline defined as questions 1, 2, 3 above, I don't think CBM differentiated between 1 & 3 and in fact there is additional information between 2 and 3 discussing how the property was more or less remote as well as which holes they found first. Put simply, by 1928 I don't think it mattered to him whether the intervening time between gaining agreement sometime after November 1st, 1906 and signing the papers on December 14th were anything worthy of note except to mention the general timeframe of events. Do you?
Your question is a false choice.
I may as well turn to the next page of the book and ask you which came first, again going in the order the events are mentioned in the summary of events on the creation of NGLA that you're interpreting as some strict chronology;
1) "We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (clubhouse) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay..."
2) "I first placed the golf holes which were almost unanimously considered the finest of their character in Great Britain."
3) "We found a setting for the Alps hole which the Whighams...considered to be superior to the original type. Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and find a perfect Redan which was absolutely natural."
Again, your interpretation that there was some lengthy period of time between agreement and securing the property in which all of this additional design activity took place on the land doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Again, the summary of events around the creation of NGLA in the book is not a strict chronology.
When CBM mentioned, post-agreement, "Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.", it sounds exactly as he described in all the newspaper accounts concerning what would happen (and actually did happen) over the next five months once he signed the papers in December 1906.
-
To show that God has a wicked sense of humor, I've been informed that the 1906 Lesley Cup matches were not held at Garden City but instead Charles Blair Macdonald and the New York squad won 13-2 over Philadelphia in the event played at...the club whose name cannot be mentioned. :-X ;D
-
Let's assume for a moment that this article is factually correct and your interpretation of it is spot on and and that prior to any agreement with the Real Estate Company Macdonald had the land of Sebonac Neck surveyed, a contour map created, blueprints prepared, and then mailed abroad to the folks described in the articles.
Where did I say anything about CBM having had the land surveyed? Or CBM having had a contour map created? Or CBM having blueprints prepared?
As I have indicated repeatedly, I don't know what exactly the article meant by maps with elevations. It could have been a stick routing drawn over the top of the previously existing atlas map. It could have been drawings on a map created by the developer in conjunction with their plans (thus the developers reference to three high areas and substantial lowland on the property.) It could have been straight line elevations like those on the blueprint, which isn't a "contour map." It could have been rough sketches of some of the holes, with guesses at elevations. It could have been any sort of rendering showing elevations. It could have been about a few holes or it could have been about the whole course. We don't know.
In short, Mike, you read things into my position that aren't there, to try and create conflicts with Scotland's Gift where none exist.
If you have to mischaracterize my position to make your point, then perhaps your point is not worth making.
-
Rich Goodale,
I noticed that you started another thread, but, we're still waiting for you to tell us why you stated that the land where the clubhouse currently sits was "ungolfable" ?
Certainly, you've had enough time to gather information and support for your claim.
You made a definitive statement that the land where the clubhouse currently sits, was "ungolfable".
It's clearly some of the best land on the property, so tell us, in plain Engish or alternatively, in sarcastic tones, why you claim that the land is "ungolfable" ?
I also asked you, how many times have you played NGLA, yet you've failed to respond.
Surely, the answer to such a simple and direct question doesn't require much in the way of contemplative thought.
And it certainly shouldn't tax your memory.
You stuck your sarcastic two cents in, now pay the piper.
-
Sven,
That's a very good point.
In fact, if an agreement was already in place between Macdonald and the Real Estate Company by October 15, 1906 then why did he wait until December 3rd to notify those who had invested in the deal?
Mike,
What difference does the date make ?
None of the investors had a clue about golf course/hole design, so what relevance does your latest monkey wrench have to do with anything ?
He mentions that this agreement has come "after one year's study and search", and we know he tells us in Scotland's Gift when he began that search.
One year's "study" doesn't imply that the "studying" took place at NGLA, the East End of LI, elsewhere in the U.S. or abroad.
Nor does it imply that the "study" was limited to physical examination.
He could have been studying his drawings or other elements related to GCA.
And, he could have "studied" for 11 months and searched for 1 month.
You continue to interpret almost everything to fit your predetermined conclusions, rather than examine a phrase from a variety of logical perspectives.
Kinda like Bryan insisting the golfers teeing off of the current # 1 had the sun in their eyes at sunrise, until, it was pointed out that sunrise
at NGLA took place at 5:18 am ;D
We also know he signed the deal on December 14th, 1906.
CBM states that he took possession in the spring of 1907 and began development immediately.
Do you think that his investors were micro managing his efforts or had him on the clock ?
No one cared !
They knew who he was, they knew what he intended and they threw their lot and cash in with him, without having any oversight.
-
I don't remember this article being posted before from 1908. For your fun and amusement please see the bottom of column 4
where it seems the housing (now a small bungalow) component is still on the table in 1908. Go figure. ;D I hope this
doesn't lead to another thirty pages. A lot of scrolling is required as I made the article quite large to make it readable.
Sadly the pictures aren't very clear.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/281/17824916174_ee9237d11d_o.jpg)
-
On another front, I had previously asked whether the "staking" was of the course itself and not the boundaries. I noticed in the December 15, 1906 New York Tribune article that the following paragraph was included.
A committee to lay out the course has also been appointed, as follows: C B. Macdonald. Walter J. Travis. H.J. Whigham and Devereaux Emmet. This committee has been granted three months to stake out the course. After that a plaster of paris model in miniature will be made. This model will be an exact reproduction of the proposed holes.
At least in this article the wording could be read to mean that they were putting stakes in the ground for tees, greens and centrelines. This seems like a reasonable interpretation to me since the following statement says the "model" will be made after the staking. Why would they need to stake the boundaries before building the model?
-
Thanks Bryan.
I guess Macdonald bungled the bungalows while burning the brambles? ;)
Beautiful!
-
Bryan,
What is even more noteworthy than the relatively inconsequential matter of housing lots for the Founders is that here it's July of 1908 and Walter Travis is pictured out there with Macdonald and Whigham laying out the course.
-
Patrick,
I mostly agree with your last post. Particularly the part about "study". After all, he had just returned from a four-month trip abroad in mid-June 1906 with all of those drawings and photos to go through and digest and gather opinions about.
-
Also, I recognize I'm probably just being persnickety here but I would feel much more confident that CBM sent a contour map of Sebonac Neck to these fellows if the article said the singular "A map", or "A contour map". The plural "Maps" makes me think they were the "to scale" hole drawings of classic holes overseas that Macdonald mentioned he was having drawn up by "draughtsmen" he hired when he returned in June 1906.
One might think it a bit odd to send these folks maps of their own holes, but honestly, how many of the original links holes had been topographically mapped for reproduction back at that time?
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/368/18454463905_a7ffa9731e_b.jpg)
-
David,
I come in peace, with questions, if only to try to break the repetitive logjam of interpreting this and that report. Maybe it would shed some light on your position to look at it from another way, perhaps using your legal perspective of how the option would work rather than the legendary “we could configure the property to our needs” from just a golf design perspective. If you have done this, I missed it or forgot.
I understand laws are different over time and in different states, but presume the basic principles haven’t changed much, but to explain your position to Mike in a different way, my question is this:
Most options and certainly property purchase agreements are on a specific parcel, and those documents would have a property description (metes and bounds, probably from the previous survey) and map, no?
Would it have been probable or unlikely that CBM could take an option on an undefined piece of property in November 1906, or do you think he took it on the property line we see on the blueprint?
Would you agree that by the preliminary agreement in October, that CBM no longer had the right to use all 450 acres? But was most likely in his final configuration, or very close, perhaps because he had to be to acquire the option? (Either strictly legally, or because the land company was smart and wasn’t going to let him go on forever selecting land)
And, could the option allow (perhaps limited) change to that specific parcel (not unlike Merion adding three acres after routing? I think the report mentioned having three months to finalize, although the final purchase was five months later (This doesn’t trouble me much, it could have been extended, or they could have left time for survey and documents)
We don’t see anything in the reported record that shows the parcel line changes occurred in the option period, do we? The western boundary changed, but only by sale to Sabin, if I recall. And by buying the pro shop site and 2 Acre triangle by Rt. 27, both later.
BTW, when I saw that road in front of 8 tee in yellow pencil, which seems to be an extension of what was then a stub ended Sebonac road, it made me think the option probably had other conditions limiting CBM, for the practical purpose of retaining access to now landlocked SHPB land, later the Sabin Estate.
And, if you will, what do you make of Bahto’s idea that CBM tried to buy Shinny? Mistake on his part due to the intermingled use of the Shinnecock Hills phrase to describe the entire area?
Mike,
I agree with your general reading, especially if Bahto is right in his book, where he seems to place Raynor out there early, and especially since that says "all the undulations" and not some other thing. That said, there is also the record that Raynor drew the contour map for the plaster model later, so we must have some doubts with conflicting information. I am sure it was not their own holes, but a map of the property under consideration, whatever it included.
But then, presuming that seemingly bolsters David's claim that a lot more work was done early, see my post above with questions about what he needed to do legally to just get the option.
-
Jeff,
Our posts likely crossed but I think it's very unlikely that what CBM sent overseas to those gentlemen that was referenced in the October 15th article were contour maps of the Sebonac Neck property.
Even if those gentlemen had played those holes many times before, how many of those holes and parts of holes and other hole concepts from the ancient links courses were actually put to paper in those days? How many were previously drawn to scale? Especially for discussion about reproducing them across the ocean?
I would imagine they'd have lots to discuss related to those holes, including gaining more consensus regarding which to try and reproduce. After all, CBM had only just returned with reams of information (i.e photos, drawings, etc.) from many courses in mid-June 1906. There was a lot to digest and discuss.
**ADDED** You didn't ask me directly but I also don't believe that any boundaries were defined in the Agreement to secure land signed by the parties in December 1906. If there were, why then mention that the boundaries would be determined later? It makes no sense, frankly and why would they go through that additional work and expense if they were going to spend the next five months determining which holes to reproduce and their distances?
I would think the agreement would simply state something general like the eastern shore of Sebonac Neck, extending from the Shinnecock Inn to the Peconic Bay, extending 2 miles long and 4 acres wide encompassing 200 of 450 acres, much as CBM described in news reports in Dec. 1915.
-
Thanks for posting the article, Bryan.
As for the "bungalows," in CBM's 1912 statement he discussed having built a "bathing facilities" and that a number of founders had subscribed to two "dressing rooms" each. Dressing rooms (dressing bungalows?) - lockers, baths, necessary conveniences - seems to match the description provided here.
-
The exact statement is;
"There will, however, be apportioned to members the required amount of ground upon which they can build small bungalows, which can contain their lockers and baths and the necessary conveniences."
This was not some shared bath-house at this time of the planning.
It sounds like the idea to provide building lots to members went from 1.5 acre lots to smaller and smaller as the project progressed, but as of July 1908, fully two years after Macdonald's return from abroad, the idea of providing land for building lots to members was certainly not dead.
-
Jeff,
Regarding the agreement to secure 200 acres signed on December 14th, 1906, here's how CBM was quoted the next day;
"We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long. The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to us in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."
And what were the committee going to be working on in the interim?
"We will reproduce the best holes and make the most delightful round that can be conceived. Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months."
To me, the "all concerned" who are giving Macdonald "latitude" in his agreement is the Real Estate Company, who certainly wanted to see Macdonald achieve his goal of creating the best course on the planet near their planned development.
Why stake out land only to have to do it all again after determining which holes to reproduce and their distances? The Real Estate Company had no plans for the rest of Sebonac Neck at that time and the land certainly wasn't going anywhere. These were very practical men.
Why incur that needless waste of time and money?
-
"Necessary facilities" is a euphemism for toilet. It is not a euphemism for one and a half acre building lots in fee simple for housing. At this point remember that there was to be no formal clubhouse. If indeed it was part of the plan at this point, allowing the founders to build private locker and bathing facilities is hardly what we have been talking about.
-
I came across this definition of "bungalow" as it was known during the "Arts and Crafts" period of the time, as well as a photo.
American Craftsman bungalow
The American Craftsman bungalow typified the common styles of the American Arts and Crafts movement, with common features usually including: low-pitch roof lines on a gabled or hipped roof; deeply overhanging eaves; exposed rafters or decorative brackets under the eaves; and a front porch beneath an extension of the main roof. Two of the manufacturing companies that produced kits and sold them from catalogues for construction on sites during the turn of the 19th century were the Sears Company and The Aladdin Company.
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/539/18269895768_ed8fca9b0c_b.jpg)
I'm not a real estate expert but it looks as though you could get quite a few of these on, what, perhaps quarter acre lots?
-
Mike,
I think we are all missing it, but its in that newspaper shared last night by Bryan.....in the article below - They were giving each founder profitable one acre melon patches! They say they were very profitable!
BTW, if it was a shared bathhouse for the members, I don't want to delve into those details.
As to what "Make sense" regarding those final property lines, I hope David will answer, because I am starting to believe some legal procedures would probably describe what makes sense more than a newspaper report. I speculated that he probably still had some wiggle room from that blue line print property line, but he didn't still have a carte blanch over the 450 acres to be determined later.
I have argued that it took longer to finalize the routing than certainly three days, but I would also argue that that figuring out the basic property after October doesn't allow enough time either. I have argued it wouldn't make sense for CBM to route on property he didn't own, but it doesn't make sense to have Raynor survey 450 acres in a short time, either. It seems to me whatever maps he sent would have been narrowed down.
I agree they had some latitude, but was it the 2-3 acres of extra land Merion later had, or was it the right to do as Pat once suggested, go up into some superior land on the future Sabin estate? I can envision it being very minor, a la a tweak of the border on the blue print. But, I think David or another lawyer on this site would be better qualified to describe the probable technicalities that you, me, or some cub reporter from 1906......and I can't envision a real estate company giving CBM endless time to make up his mind, as they were business people. Likewise, I can't figure CBM studying for over a year and cramming all the routing into three months......
As to the "distances and holes to be reproduced", as I have said to you in an email, I think he had land allocations in mind, basically two holes wide, with some holes firmly fixed (like 3, 4, 13, 14,) and probably others - like 18, (if its a water hole, we know its going to be snug to the water) 17 (the hilltop tee was easy to find early, and started to set up the counterclockwise routing, and then 1 and 2 to get back somewhere near where he envisioned the 3rd tee for Alps, etc.) I think 14-15 and 5-12 could have been less defined placeholders, with fewer signature topo features.
Depending on David's answers, I accept his term of "rough routing" even though I envision it slightly differently and might have used different terms. Not only am I a moron.....I may be overly finicky in terminology. :D
-
Bryan:
Great article, which provides some interesting details.
1. In the first column, it notes that despite what covered the ground, the golf "cracks" were able to perceive in the nature of the soil and the roll of the ground the future course.
2. Nothing new in the list of holes, but they are still referring to them by number such that the nines hadn't been switched. This would have been a few months removed from the burning of the Inn.
3. As of July 1908, in the middle of the summer with the drought that created all of the grass growing issues, they already had a complete irrigation system in place. This suggests to me that that was the plan all along, or at the very least they realized very early in the process that they would need irrigation.
4. There are a number of inaccuracies, however, one of them being the notation that the course had been under construction for two years, meaning some time in 1906 as the starting point. We know that wasn't the case.
5. They also describe the course as being 1,000 yards wide. It was wide, but I don't think it was that wide.
6. As for the Mike's point regarding Travis being depicted with the others "laying out" the course, the article is dated, but the photo is not. It could be from 1906, 1907 or 1908. My guess is sometime in 1907, as they appear to be standing on uncleared land.
7. With respect to the bungalow quote, I'd put more credence in it if we knew who the unnamed source was. It tells us nothing about CBM's mindset on this point, and if it was at all a concern regarding how the land was used. The fact that the speaker of the quote tells us that no clubhouse would be built is enough for me to question the veracity of the entire comment, as we know there were always plans for a permanent clubhouse at some point (the discussion early on of bringing in associate members to fund its construction being dispositive).
8. Finally, the pictures are rather fuzzy, but I couldn't help noting the similarity between these two scenes:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-04%20at%208.17.49%20AM_zps0cxgyooe.png)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/31c0b969-6978-4eea-b3be-64bf7f4aa156_zpsiotighlv.jpg)
-
Jeff,
I think we're all a bunch of melon heads! ;)
Seriously, I believe the "water hole" that CBM describes with a potential 240 yard carry in his December 15th reported quote is the Cape hole, which is also one of the four holes CBM describes finding early in his book.
Also, related to what CBM had in his possession after his return from abroad, the article points out;
For this purpose Mr. C. B. MacDonald...made an automobile tour of England and played upon the noted links of that country, and by consultation with the "crack" players abroad selected what are perhaps the hardest holes, or at least those having the most interesting and complex features, and with great care had drawings made, together with measurements and photographs, and thus has been able to reproduce on the dunes of Long Island almost the exact counterpart of these holes."
Do you think those "consultations" with the best players abroad happened while he was there, after he came home, or both?
-
Jeff,
Our posts likely crossed but I think it's very unlikely that what CBM sent overseas to those gentlemen that was referenced in the October 15th article were contour maps of the Sebonac Neck property.
Even if those gentlemen had played those holes many times before, how many of those holes and parts of holes and other hole concepts from the ancient links courses were actually put to paper in those days? How many were previously drawn to scale? Especially for discussion about reproducing them across the ocean?
I would imagine they'd have lots to discuss related to those holes, including gaining more consensus regarding which to try and reproduce. After all, CBM had only just returned with reams of information (i.e photos, drawings, etc.) from many courses in mid-June 1906. There was a lot to digest and discuss.
Mike:
The best explanation of the conversations that occurred regarding the templates was written by CBM himself. Go back and reread his Golfers Magazine piece on the Ideal Course (published in Jan. 1907, but as this was a monthly probably written a month or two prior at the least).
If you don't have it, I can post it here (I'm sure its been posted elsewhere).
Sven
-
Bryan:
Great article, which provides some interesting details.
1. In the first column, it notes that despite what covered the ground, the golf "cracks" were able to perceive in the nature of the soil and the roll of the ground the future course.
2. Nothing new in the list of holes, but they are still referring to them by number such that the nines hadn't been switched. This would have been a few months removed from the burning of the Inn.
3. As of July 1908, in the middle of the summer with the drought that created all of the grass growing issues, they already had a complete irrigation system in place. This suggests to me that that was the plan all along, or at the very least they realized very early in the process that they would need irrigation.
4. There are a number of inaccuracies, however, one of them being the notation that the course had been under construction for two years, meaning some time in 1906 as the starting point. We know that wasn't the case.
5. They also describe the course as being 1,000 yards wide. It was wide, but I don't think it was that wide.
6. As for the Mike's point regarding Travis being depicted with the others "laying out" the course, the article is dated, but the photo is not. It could be from 1906, 1907 or 1908. My guess is sometime in 1907, as they appear to be standing on uncleared land.
7. With respect to the bungalow quote, I'd put more credence in it if we knew who the unnamed source was. It tells us nothing about CBM's mindset on this point, and if it was at all a concern regarding how the land was used. The fact that the speaker of the quote tells us that no clubhouse would be built is enough for me to question the veracity of the entire comment, as we know there were always plans for a permanent clubhouse at some point (the discussion early on of bringing in associate members to fund its construction being dispositive).
8. Finally, the pictures are rather fuzzy, but I couldn't help noting the similarity between these two scenes:
Sven,
I agree with several points but you're also really starting to reach in others.
1) Yes, of course we know that CBM and Whigham were able to determine that the ground was appropriately rolling and the soil was sand based during their first "2 or 3" rides via horseback. I'm the one who argued that they definitely saw the Alps hill and redan plateau on one of those first rides. They were on horses because CBM told us that was the only way to navigate the property but we also know based on those rides they saw enough to convince them to make an offer.
But here we have yet another article describing the condition of the property as difficult, "When the land was obtained it was covered with brush, shrubbery and rose vines and a growth of rank grass, swamps and other topographical difficulties, which involved a large outlay of money and labor to clear..."
2) Agreed.
3) Wasn't there a large water tower behind the 8th green back then? I forget the history of that one, but agree t's likely CBM wanted a fresh water source.
4 & 5) Agreed.
6) I looked at that and it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures. ;) Where a photo source was from outside and info available those sources are noted.
And, as I've noted here previously, an August 15th Brooklyn Daily Eagle detailed article stated; "Acting as co-workers with Mr. Macdonald are Mr. Whigham, Walter J. Travis, and Findlay S. Douglas. Their suggestions and ideas have been carefully carried out by Mortimer Payne...who has had charge of the Shinnecock Hills golf course for so many years. Few persons have any conception of the difficulties he has had to surmount. Several low spots containing water to a depth of four feet have been drained, filled in and left dry as a bone."
7) The un-named source is described as "one of the Founders" no? Why would he still be attached to a notion, albeit modified downwards in scope, that you claim had been dispelled two years previously? Regarding the 1904 Founders Agreement that you see as "dispositive", I thought that was only a "suggestion"? Why do you think they didn't build it from the beginning if that was the case? What changed? In the end, was it the Founders or the Associate Members who built the clubhouse?
8) Regarding the picture comparison, for a guy who claims to not have a horse in this race you sure seem to be reaching. Thanks for that chuckle though! ;) ;D
-
Mike:
The best explanation of the conversations that occurred regarding the templates was written by CBM himself. Go back and reread his Golfers Magazine piece on the Ideal Course (published in Jan. 1907, but as this was a monthly probably written a month or two prior at the least).
If you don't have it, I can post it here (I'm sure its been posted elsewhere).
Sven
Sven,
I don't have it and would greatly appreciate if you could reproduce it here. Thanks!
-
1) Yes, of course we know that CBM and Whigham were able to determine that the ground was appropriately rolling and the soil was sand based during their first "2 or 3" rides via horseback. They were on horses because CBM told us that was the only way to navigate the property but we also know based on those rides they saw enough to convince them to make an offer.
But here we have yet another article describing the condition of the property as difficult, "When the land was obtained it was covered with brush, shrubbery and rose vines and a growth of rank grass, swamps and other topographical difficulties, which involved a large outlay of money and labor to clear..."
We've covered this before. They were on horseback to get over the difficult parts of the property (I don't believe the entire parcel was as impassable as you suggest), and also to cover a good deal of ground in a reasonable amount of time. The statement you quoted above does a good job of describing the diversity of the land, something I commented on yesterday regarding your broad stroke tendencies.
3) Wasn't there a large water tower behind the 8th green back then? I forget the history of that one, but agree t's likely CBM wanted a fresh water source.
Mike, I'll find your quote from earlier in the thread as to how the loss of the grass in 1908 caused them to have to start over with a new irrigation system. The article describes that system as well in the works, suggesting it had been started well before July 1908.
6) I looked at that and it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures. ;) Where a photo source was from outside and info available those sources are noted.
When do you think that particular photo was taken? If it was anywhere near the date of the article, than at the very least you'd have to concede that the caption is completely misleading, as they were well past "laying out" the course.
And, as I've noted here previously, an August 15th Brooklyn Daily Eagle detailed article stated; "Acting as co-workers with Mr. Macdonald are Mr. Whigham, Walter J. Travis, and Findlay S. Douglas. Their suggestions and ideas have been carefully carried out by Mortimer Payne...who has had charge of the Shinnecock Hills golf course for so many years. Few persons have any conception of the difficulties he has had to surmount. Several low spots containing water to a depth of four feet have been drained, filled in and left dry as a bone."
7) The un-named source is described as "one of the Founders" no? Why would he be attached to a notion that you claim had been dispelled two years previously? Regarding the 1904 Founders Agreement that you see as "dispositive", I thought that was only a "suggestion"? Why do you think they didn't build it from the beginning if that was the case? What changed? In the end, was it the Founders or the Associate Members who built the clubhouse?
Were bungalows built? Why not?
8) Regarding the picture comparison, for a guy who claims to not have a horse in this race you sure seem to be reaching. Thanks for that chuckle though! ;) ;D
My only horse is common sense and a respect for the truth. I am certainly not being persuaded or guided by arguments I made in the past regarding this course or other courses. And I'm not sure why you're laughing at a comparison between a photo and a painting that you previously stated had no resemblance to what the ground looked like. They look pretty damn similar to me.
-
Sven,
If that photo of CBM, Travis, et.al. was taken from the same vantage point as that picture was painted, I'd agree with you. However, various areas of the Shinnecock Hills had various histories. Some had previously been cleared for farming. The Sebonac Neck had not previous to CBM. At the time that photo was taken was almost certainly post-clearing of Sebonac Neck.
I'm only going by the descriptions and direct quotes of others, and they are mostly first-hand accounts. I think we can agree to let this one rest and I didn't mean any offense with the chuckle, sorry.
As far as "laying out" indicating when that photo with Travis was taken, you're one of the lucky ones who was spared the torturous debates we used to go through here to argue about what was meant by the term.
I think it's safe to say that what we mutually learned at the time was that the way it was used could mean anything from designing on paper, in the field with stakes, or constructing the course on the ground post-design were all termed "laying out". I think I'm safe in saying it was basically anything prior to course opening and was used to describe a multitude of activities in the nascent game in the United States.
-
Mike:
I believe you do have the Golfing Magazine article, which was a reprint of the Outing Magazine piece that was included later in Scotland's gift.
The first part of the article discusses the back and forth he had with various parties on certain holes and courses that he had studied.
The most interesting aspect of the article is its timing. The Outing Magazine piece was crafted after his return from Europe and during the time period he was narrowing down his thoughts on an ideal course and what he would be doing on the ground at NGLA. I noted this previously, but the comparison between what he wrote about as an ideal course, and what was actually done on the ground is an interesting study, especially when you consider that he did not use certain template holes on Sebonac Neck. This suggests a strong correlation between the ground and the design. For example, he wasn't going to force a Biarritz onto a course where it didn't fit.
Sven
-
Mike:
I believe you do have the Golfing Magazine article, which was a reprint of the Outing Magazine piece that was included later in Scotland's gift.
The first part of the article discusses the back and forth he had with various parties on certain holes and courses that he had studied.
The most interesting aspect of the article is its timing. The Outing Magazine piece was crafted after his return from Europe and during the time period he was narrowing down his thoughts on an ideal course and what he would be doing on the ground at NGLA. I noted this previously, but the comparison between what he wrote about as an ideal course, and what was actually done on the ground is an interesting study, especially when you consider that he did not use certain template holes on Sebonac Neck. This suggests a strong correlation between the ground and the design. For example, he wasn't going to force a Biarritz onto a course where it didn't fit.
Sven
Sven,
I'll go back and look further, thanks. I do recall noting many of those things and agree that the timing is relevant to the discussion of what was going on.
I also agree that he wasn't going to force anything on the ground that didn't fit naturally.
**ADDED** Sven, is that original article reproduced in whole in "Scotland's Gift"?
-
As far as "laying out" indicating when that photo with Travis was taken, you're one of the lucky ones who was spared the torturous debates we used to go through here to argue about what was meant by the term.
I think it's safe to say that what we mutually learned at the time was that the way it was used could mean anything from designing on paper, in the field with stakes, or constructing the course on the ground post-design were all termed "laying out". I think I'm safe in saying it was basically anything prior to course opening and was used to describe a multitude of activities in the nascent game in the United States.
Mike:
"Spared" might not be the right term. I read this site for a long time before commenting.
Having read every early golf magazine, numerous books and thousands of newspaper articles on the courses built in the US, I am well aware that the term meant different things to different people under different contexts.
If the caption is right, and the photo was taken during the layout phase (prior to the land being cleared), then the only logical conclusion is that there were parts of the property that had a more open grassy look. On this piece of property, it would seem that you went from a wooded area at the south end, up to a swampy area with the densest vegetation in the middle, to a more open grassy area on the bluff up where the clubhouse sits today. Admitted speculation, but this makes sense to me based on exactly where each of those various sections lay with respect to the elevations of the course and the distances from the Bay.
If the caption is wrong, then what we are looking at is a bunch of guys examine a course that was well into the construction phase.
Either the photo is contemporaneous to what is included in the article itself or it predates that text by at least a year.
Sven
-
Sven,
One thing that seems to have also been revised between the 1906 Outing article and the end result of his Ideal course would be the ideal widths of fairways.
"The tendency to widen courses is much to be lamented.
Forty-five to sixty yards is plenty wide enough. This is wider than
St. Andrews used to be thirty years ago, when the course was better
than it is now. I note that Mr. Dealy, Mr. Lucas and Mr.
Charles Hutchins in laying out the new course (that last word in
golf) at Sandwich have kept a width of rather under than over
fifty yards."
Also, I think you're assuming that the author of the article is using the term "laying out" in the design sense when I think he's probably referring to directing the construction phase. He also has a photo of Mortimer Payne, who was supervising that construction.
-
Sven,
I'll go back and look further, thanks. I do recall noting many of those things and agree that the timing is relevant to the discussion of what was going on.
I also agree that he wasn't going to force anything on the ground that didn't fit naturally.
**ADDED** Sven, is that original article reproduced in whole in "Scotland's Gift"?
I haven't compared the three publications in detail, but here's the original Outing piece:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/CBM-Ideal-Golf-Course-1906-1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/CBM-Ideal-Golf-Course-1906-2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/CBM-Ideal-Golf-Course-1906-3.jpg)
-
Sven, All good points in your post 1154 above. Maybe the author meant 1000 ft wide. There are a few other small inaccuracies, but probably not worth dwelling over.
____________________________________________________
Mike,
The article indicates that the small bungalows "can contain [] lockers and baths and necessary conveniences." This is a description of a self-contained private dressing area or locker room. It is similar in principle to the private dressing areas CBM discussed in 1912, only there was no clubhouse in 1908 so he anticipated that they would be individual structures.
Post all the photographs of homes that you like, but this is not a description of a home.
____________________________________________________
It may or may not be significant, but the use of the word "can" caught my eye. "Can" is often used to express permission. "Small bungalows which can contain . . .." I can't help but consider this in the context of the statement from the developer limiting the use of the property to a golf course. Small private dressing/bathing/locker structures would seem fit within the limitation, and it makes me wonder if the Founder who provided the quote isn't referring to something in agreement with the developer which allowed for the creation of such structures but limited their use.
-
Sven,
One thing that seems to have also been revised between the 1906 Outing article and the end result of his Ideal course would be the ideal widths of fairways.
"The tendency to widen courses is much to be lamented.
Forty-five to sixty yards is plenty wide enough. This is wider than
St. Andrews used to be thirty years ago, when the course was better
than it is now. I note that Mr. Dealy, Mr. Lucas and Mr.
Charles Hutchins in laying out the new course (that last word in
golf) at Sandwich have kept a width of rather under than over
fifty yards."
Also, I think you're assuming that the author of the article is using the term "laying out" in the design sense when I think he's probably referring to directing the construction phase. He also has a photo of Mortimer Payne, who was supervising that construction.
Not sure where you're going with the ideal width comment, and I think the articles are consistent on that point.
He discussed fairways being 45 - 60 yards wide. What that doesn't include is doglegs, massive bunkering along the fairways (like the Sahara) and other features that effectively broaden the playing corridor.
I'm guessing you are suggesting that amount of room he planned to use changed, taking up more of the "4 acre" wide swath that they purchased. I don't think that is the case. He was not building a cramped space, and with room between holes on the interior and the mantra (as noted in the article) that OB should never be in play, the actual width of the course was much wider than simply thinking about two 45 or 50 or 60 yard fairways adjacent to each other.
As to your last point, I don't agree. I can't recall a single instance of "laying out" being used to describe work being done over a year after construction began.
Sven
-
Mike,
The article indicates that the small bungalows "can contain their lockers and baths and necessary conveniences." This is a description of a self-contained private dressing area or locker room. It is similar in principle to the private dressing areas CBM discussed in 1912, only there was no clubhouse in 1908 so he anticipated that they would be individual structures.
Post all the photographs of homes that you like, but this is not a description of a home.
____________________________________________________
It may or may not be significant, but the use of the word "can" caught my eye. "Can" is often used to express permission. "Small bungalows which can contain . . .." I can't help but consider this in the context of the statement from the developer limiting the use of the property to a golf course. Small private dressing/bathing/locker structures would seem fit within the limitation, and it makes me wonder if the Founder who provided the quote isn't referring to something in agreement with the developer which allowed for the creation of such structures but limited their use.
David:
In any case, it certainly doesn't sound like a real estate play or an investment opportunity. And we've certainly moved beyond the idea that they were contemplating using 90 acres of the property for 1.5 acre parcels (the old red herring that 90 + 110 = what was bought).
Sven
-
Regarding Mikes' theory that the course was meant to be narrow with houses around the edges or even between the holes, CBM also discussed the necessity of alternate routes (allowing the shorter weaker player to play around the hazard) in the same article.
-
Regarding the photos, all we know is that they were taken some time before the article was published. The idea that Mike Cirba would claim to be able to look at this rough, nearly illegible copy and be able to determine when these photos were taken says a lot about how Mike's mind works (". . . it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures.") Really?
As for the captions, I wouldn't give them much weight, considering they show a "Battle Hole" and depict CBM's Road Role ("St. Andrews") as hanging out over the Peconic.
-
Regarding Mikes' theory that the course was meant to be narrow with houses around the edges or even between the holes, CBM also discussed the necessity of alternate routes (allowing the shorter weaker player to play around the hazard) in the same article.
David,
Where did I say the course was meant to be narrow? 50 yard wide fairways are even big enough to contain our respective mollydooker games and he secured on average 280 yards of width, certainly enough to contain an out and back routing and much more if that's what he chose to do and the course would still be spacious.
And despite Whigham characterizing the plan to provide housing lots as "ingenious" earlier in 1906, CBM made clear from the start that this wasn't about investment but about golf and accommodating his founders.
You can characterize and parse the small bungalows still planned in 1908 all you wish but members would not be provided land to individually build the Job Johnnys with an overhead spigot that you're describing. ;)
-
Where did I say the course was meant to be narrow?
For years you have argued that the course was meant to be much narrower than it turned out, and that CBM planned to put housing along the borders or even between holes.
You can characterize and parse the small bungalows still planned in 1908 all you wish but members would not be provided land to individually build the Job Johnnys with an overhead spigot that you're describing.
Again with the distortions, Mike? I don't know what a "Job Johnny" is, but what I'm "describing" comes straight out of the article. "Small bungalows which can contain [the Founders'] baths, lockers, and necessary conveniences." That is NOT the description of a home. Even you must see that.
-
Back in the beginning it was suggested that: "We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground". Over time the debate here has turned that into a real estate play, or a housing development or ......................
Various reports over time indicated that there might be villas or now bungalows. The various news reports suggest that things evolved over those early years, but in the end nothing happened. In the end no land was given to the founders and no buildings were built. It is no surprise that the initial possibility of ground being given to the founders withered and died on the vine.
This most recent news item from 1908 suggests to me that one of the founders felt that the site was so remote that the rich guy members who had the means to travel to the course weren't going to unless there were some necessary conveniences there for them. Of course, that didn't happen and I guess was superseded by the building of the clubhouse in 1910.
What is there to argue about here.
The following clip from the Eagle, April 13, 1908 suggests that there were factions within NGLA debating how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down. The bungalows with the necessary conveniences might have been part of that discussion.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8848/18461172045_16ffbc7bbf_h.jpg)
-
Regarding the photos, all we know is that they were taken some time before the article was published. The idea that Mike Cirba would claim to be able to look at this rough, nearly illegible copy and be able to determine when these photos were taken says a lot about how Mike's mind works (". . . it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures.") Really?
As for the captions, I wouldn't give them much weight, considering they show a "Battle Hole" and depict CBM's Road Role ("St. Andrews") as hanging out over the Peconic.
David,
Right on, how do we even know for certain that's Walter Travis in that photo?
Didn't Macdonald claim he "dropped" Travis, no matter what these contemporaneous reports from 1907 and 1908 report!
Mortimer Payne wasn't hired until May 1907. I bet they're just using his stock photo they probably used hundreds of times prior.
Sven,
How many courses of that time period took from 1907 until 1910 to open from design through grow in?
-
Bryan,
I agree with your assessment 100%. It was something that evolved through the life of the project and not something that was determined in 1906.
-
Where did I say the course was meant to be narrow?
For years you have argued that the course was meant to be much narrower than it turned out, and that CBM planned to put housing along the borders or even between holes.
You can characterize and parse the small bungalows still planned in 1908 all you wish but members would not be provided land to individually build the Job Johnnys with an overhead spigot that you're describing.
Again with the distortions, Mike? I don't know what a "Job Johnny" is, but what I'm "describing" comes straight out of the article. "Small bungalows which can contain [the Founders'] baths, lockers, and necessary conveniences." That is NOT the description of a home. Even you must see that.
David,
The had 280 yards of width along two miles. They had all the room they needed to do whatever they wanted. You just don't want to give up on the idea that the course was somehow routed by Dec 1906 when in fact, it wasnt.
A Job Johnny is a portable lavoratory. Why, when you quote what the Founder said do you keep omitting the part about each member being given land on which to build a small bungalow.
Of course they were going to poop and bathe there.
-
Mike. Do you think that photo of W.K. Vanderbilt was taken "that day" too? How about the photos of Thomas Jefferson Coolidge and Robert Bacon?
I don't give a crap about when the photos were taken. I just think it funny that you pretend that you can tell by looking at them that they were taken that same day by a staff photographer and that the day must have been at the time the article was written.
_______________________________________
As for Travis, I have no idea what you are on about? We all know Travis was out there on the property, and here we have photo of him out there on the property. Wow. It confirms what we already know.
Surely you've twisted this in your mind to mean something much more, but why don't we table that wild goose chase until we've properly disposed of all your current wild goose chases?
-
Sven,
How many courses of that time period took from 1907 until 1910 to open from design through grow in?
Mike:
That is a completely disingenuous question. You know that 1910 was not the original planned date of opening.
Sven
-
David,
If you look, you'd note that many of those photos are attributed.
As far as what I'm implying, it's simply the second article from the summer of 1908 that indicates Travis was still on the project well into construction and grow-in.
-
Sven,
My question was in reference to your statement that you can't recall the term laying out being used at any point a year after construction started. I've seen it used any time prior to opening and the point of the question was that NGLA took an exceptionally long time from start to finish for that time period.
-
Bryan, I read the article about the aftermath of the fire similarly, and I think you are correct to point out that the discussion of the "small bungalows" is best understood in conjunction with he discussion of "how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down." Once the Inn burned down, this became an issue once again.
In this regard, I don't think the bit about the "small bungalows" was about providing homesites for the members. Rather, as the article itself states, it was about allowing the Founders to build a place for their baths, lockers, and necessary conveniences.
(I do disagree with you about what the various news reports suggest regarding the apparent evolution of the plan. I don't see evolution as much as I see newspapers who are parroting stale information from a 1904 letter. But then I prefer to look to CBM's words and actions when trying to understand his intentions.)
-
Mike:
I have not seen it used to describe work being done a year after the course has been mapped, staked on the ground and construction commenced, except in circumstances were 9 holes were started and an additional 9 added later.
That was not the case here.
Sven
-
From the lurker (we really need a new term for this, its sounds creepy):
"Regarding the mention in that article of bungalows with lockers, baths and necessary facilities, that might refer to what was commonly known in those types of clubs as "bath houses" or even "cabanas." Out there in the prominent old clubs on Long Island, also clubs in Palm Beach, the Bahamas etc, etc, they were very common and actually a rather generic design-----they are basically little white huts that are about ten feet wide and maybe twenty feet deep. In the front they generally have an awning off the structure with lounge chairs under it, and behind that a little hut structure that can contain a sitting room, toilets/changing rooms and showers. In clubs like Maidstone, the famous old Beach Club of Southamption, the beach clubs of the Creek Club and Piping Rock, the Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach and Delray etc, etc, these little structures sit side by side and can go on for maybe 50 to 75 yards (although at Maidstone's Beach Clubs their configurations and placements are quite different). They are all generally identical and are lined up perfectly perpendicular to the shore line. Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."
-
Bryan, I read the article about the aftermath of the fire similarly, and I think you are correct to point out that the discussion of the "small bungalows" is best understood in conjunction with he discussion of "how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down." Once the Inn burned down, this became an issue once again.
Wow...spin, spin, spin. I'm getting dizzy.
-
Mike, Some but not all of those individual photos are attributed. The ones that aren't are probably owned by the Herald. We don't know when they were taken. They could be file photos, or they could be recent photos, or they could be a mix. I don't care either way. I just get a kick out of you pretending you can tell which where taken on at the same time by a staff photographer on a particular day in 1908.
As for Travis, this isn't new information. Don't start on your Travis tangent until we have finished your other tangents.
-
To "the Lurker",
Would those little bath houses you're describing be something the club would allocate land to each member to individually build as described by the Founder quoted in the article? Have you ever heard them referred to as small "bungalows"?
-
Bryan, I read the article about the aftermath of the fire similarly, and I think you are correct to point out that the discussion of the "small bungalows" is best understood in conjunction with he discussion of "how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down." Once the Inn burned down, this became an issue once again.
Wow...spin, spin, spin. I'm getting dizzy.
It comes as no surprise that rather straightforward logic makes you dizzy, Mike.
1. CBM had planned to use the Inn as his clubhouse, at least initially.
2. The clubhouse has burned down in April of 1908.
3. This article was in June of 1908, after the clubhouse had burned down.
4. So, as Bryan said, "there were factions within NGLA debating how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down. The bungalows with the necessary conveniences might have been part of that discussion."
Funny how when Bryan said it, you wrote, "I agree with your assessment 100%" but when I wrote it, you try to dismiss it as spin.
-
To "the Lurker",
Would those little bath houses you're describing be something the club would allocate land to each member to individually build as described by the Founder quoted in the article? Have you ever heard them referred to as small "bungalows"?
You are reading far too much into the word 'allocate' (actually "apportioned" was used.) This article does NOT say that NGLA was transferring title on seventy individual parcels of land to the founders for California Bungalows from the Sears catalog. It says the required amount of ground would be apportioned to members for them to build structures ("small bungalows") for their lockers, baths, and necessaries.
Again, consider the developer's statement regarding the limitations on the use of the property. It was to be used for a golf club. Small, on-property structures with lockers, baths, and necessaries fits. Subdividing the property for housing does not.
-
David,
Where would they sleep?
-
Given that CBM had already told them that his club was not going into the beds business, I guess they'd have to find somewhere else to sleep other than their on-site locker in the bath room. I'm sure they could manage.
Where did they sleep? Your bungalows never got built.
*ADDED. I just noticed a type above. It should read "their on-site locker and bath room."
-
David,
If you're going to mis-characterize what the Founder said I suggest we also rename them from bungaloes to bungholes, because that's all they'd be able to use in there.
-
I've mischaracterized nothing. Small bungalows which can contain their lockers, baths and necessary facilities.
-
Doesn't the author's use of the word founder in that paragraph indicate that his source is one of the four or five actual founders as opposed to one of the 70 Founders?
Remember, I haven't gone to law school so may well be wrong...
Also outside of my true comfort zone is that term "apportioned" when referencing ground...how is this not describing a grant of some amount of land?
-
Doesn't the author's use of the word founder in that paragraph indicate that his source is one of the four or five actual founders as opposed to one of the 70 Founders?
Remember, I haven't gone to law school so may well be wrong...
Also outside of my true comfort zone is that term "apportioned" when referencing ground...how is this not describing a grant of some amount of land?
Jim:
Antonin Scalia would note that if you meant one of the actual "founders" as opposed to one of the 70 "Founders," you should say so.
Some of justices who shy away from strict constructualism would allow you to interpret that clause as best fits the spirit of the article.
Clarence Thomas would nap.
Sven
-
Rich Goodale,
I noticed that you started another thread, but, we're still waiting for you to tell us why you stated that the land where the clubhouse currently sits was "ungolfable" ?
Certainly, you've had enough time to gather information and support for your claim.
You made a definitive statement that the land where the clubhouse currently sits, was "ungolfable".
It's clearly some of the best land on the property, so tell us, in plain Engish or alternatively, in sarcastic tones, why you claim that the land is "ungolfable" ?
I also asked you, how many times have you played NGLA, yet you've failed to respond.
Surely, the answer to such a simple and direct question doesn't require much in the way of contemplative thought.
And it certainly shouldn't tax your memory.
You stuck your sarcastic two cents in, now pay the piper.
Pat
1. What is the longest golf hole you could build within the confines of a circular 2.5 acre piece of land ? I'll give you a hint for starters (Area = pi * r squared)
2. Given that there is a 40 foot high knob in the middle of that circle, what sort of golf hole would you suggest be built on such a site?
3. How would that golf hole fit into the tentative routing that had already been formulated (Leven, Sahara, Alps, etc.)?
Rich
PS--That's the last you'll hear from me on this thread, as all everybody is doing (including me) is guessing, and it is getting not only boring but downright irritating.
rfg
-
Jim:
Antonin Scalia would note that if you meant one of the actual "founders" as opposed to one of the 70 "Founders," you should say so.
Some of justices who shy away from strict constructualism would allow you to interpret that clause as best fits the spirit of the article.
Clarence Thomas would nap.
Sven
Perhaps, and that spirit seems to use refer to founders intentions as you would refer to CBM and his three or four key partners on this mission.
-
Given that CBM had already told them that his club was not going into the beds business, I guess they'd have to find somewhere else to sleep other than their on-site locker in the bath room. I'm sure they could manage.
Where did they sleep? Your bungalows never got built.
David,
Despite CBM's protestations about "beds and hash", it turns out that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down he did both, and rather well, when he built the clubhouse, so he did perceive the need for onsite lodging and met it.
There are numerous bedrooms upstairs in the clubhouse and you may have heard they serve a hell of a lobster roll at lunch.
If you're out there sometime call me and I'll buy you a Southsider.
-
Doesn't the author's use of the word founder in that paragraph indicate that his source is one of the four or five actual founders as opposed to one of the 70 Founders?
Remember, I haven't gone to law school so may well be wrong...
Also outside of my true comfort zone is that term "apportioned" when referencing ground...how is this not describing a grant of some amount of land?
Jim, I agree. You may well be wrong.
A few paragraph's after quote by the "founder," the article provides an extensive list of other prominent "founders" and the list goes well beyond any core four or five. So the "founder" could have been one your core four or five, but the use of the term doesn't really support that supposition. (By the way, while Cirba and others have often claimed he was, I don't think that Travis ended up being a Founder of NGLA.
As for the word "apportion," so far as I know it has no magical connotation automatically meaning a grant of title to real property.
-
Since "the Lurker" was introduced here by Sven as what I'd term an expert witness, I asked a followup and my question and his response is as follows;
"To "the Lurker",
Would those little bath houses you're describing be something the club would allocate land to each member to individually build as described by the Founder quoted in the article? Have you ever heard them referred to as small "bungalows"?"
Mike:
Nope, or even Nopty, dopty, dope, nope. Never heard them referred to as bungalows----only as bath houses or cabanas. And no, the members do not own any land with them---that would be the clubs and in some cases they may even get into some form of sitting near the club's riparian rights. Those bathhouses or cabanas are architecturally actually very old fashioned, old world and neat looking (they are the same design in some of the old European beach spas from the teens and 1920s like St Tropez (where ladies go topless) and they kinda look permanent but I believe they basically just sit altogether on the sand in a long row. Matter of fact, I believe they may even be taken up in the winter and all stored somewhere; Frankly, over the years they probably take quite the beating from Mother Nature. I doubt they are the kind of structure that you could get an insurance policy on unless you wanted to do it with Lloyd's of London (whose motto is--"We insure anything under the sun"), and pay more for it than your mansion on Gin Lane and such.
So I asked another follow-up;
To "The Lurker",
Would anyone defined as one of the Founders of NGLA ever describe those little breakdown huts you're describing as "small bungaloes"? Or even small bungholes? ;)
Mike,
I would definitely say not. I've been out there on and off all through my life and I've never heard any of those people call their club bath houses or cabanas that. I have heard them use the term bungalows though. The are generally referring to the little houses on some of the side streets in and around particularly Easthampton. Many of them look a lot like that photo you just produced.
Thus sayeth "the Lurker"
-
Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me. As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.
-
David,
You're right about the listing of "founders".
Regarding the term "apportion"...not looking for any magic just a definition for apportioning an amount of ground required to build (at their own expense I assume) a bungalow...regardless of what a bungalow actually is.
-
Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me. As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.
David,
You may want to take that up with Sven who earlier today stated that CBM had always intended to build a clubhouse calling into question the knowledge of the quoted "founder" who said there were no plans for a clubhouse. Sven's questioned the knowledge of the "founder" because the original 1904 Founders Agreement called for a clubhouse with the associate membership funding it.
He stated that its inclusion in the 1904 Founders Agreement made it "dispositive" of CBM's intentions.
Or was that merely a "suggestion" as well?
-
I think that the founder who provided the quote anticipated that the NGLA would designate places for each founder build a structure ("small bungalow") with a locker, bath, and necessities. The article said nothing about who would own the title to the land on which the "small bungalows" were built, but given the developer's restriction it seems pretty clear that it would have been NGLA.
This was just a few months after the Inn burned down, so they may have been still trying to work this stuff out.
-
Regarding the term "apportion"...not looking for any magic just a definition for apportioning an amount of ground required to build (at their own expense I assume) a bungalow...regardless of what a bungalow actually is.
Jim,
What a sweet deal that must have been! Here, you can build at your own expense a little dumper, place to bathe and to hold your valuables on our property. Welcome to NGLA! ;D
(http://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/DVU68x6J7QGORn6y4nerlA/ls.jpg)
-
Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me. As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.
David,
You may want to take that up with Sven who earlier today stated that CBM had always intended to build a clubhouse calling into question the knowledge of the quoted "founder" who said there were no plans for a clubhouse. Sven's questioned the knowledge of the "founder" because the original 1904 Founders Agreement called for a clubhouse with the associate membership funding it.
He stated that its inclusion in the 1904 Founders Agreement made it "dispositive" of CBM's intentions.
Or was that merely a "suggestion" as well?
Jeez, Mike. Can you really be this obtuse? Or are you just playing games?
I wrote no IMMEDIATE plan in 1906. Immediate. You do understand what IMMEDIATE means, don't you?
________________________________________
As for your latest photo, I hear the "gentlemen" at Dismal River built me a bungalow. See photo in the sidebar.
-
Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me. As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.
David,
You may want to take that up with Sven who earlier today stated that CBM had always intended to build a clubhouse calling into question the knowledge of the quoted "founder" who said there were no plans for a clubhouse. Sven responded to me that he questioned the knowledge of the individual "founder" because the original 1904 Founders Agreement called for a clubhouse with the associate membership funding it.
He stated that its inclusion in the 1904 Founders Agreement made it "dispositive" of CBM's intentions.
Or was that merely a "suggestion" as well?
Mike:
Go back and read what I wrote, and in the future please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
I never mentioned the Founders Agreement (although that is one of many places the plan was referenced). In addition, I never said it was an immediate concern.
When the clubhouse was to be built, and there is no doubt in my mind that the plan was always to move away from the Shinnecock Inn at some point, it was to be funded by the money paid by the Associate members.
What David said is correct. There was no "immediate plan" for a clubhouse in 1906 (once they had use of the Shinnecock Inn). And the clubhouse that was built was and remains incapable of hosting more than "a limited number of guests" (a direct quote from the 1912 Southampton Magazine article on the course).
Your pattern of misrepresentation can only be the result of one of two causes:
1. You are an absolute idiot and are incapable of processing the English language; or
2. You are intentionally trying to muddy the debate.
Which one is it, Mike?
Sven
-
David,
I did note your avatar. They seem to be all the rage at the fashionable clubs this year. Probably inspired by the NGLA model. ;)
-
Seriously though, Mike, Sven has it about right, and this is a recurring problem in these discussions and a real detriment to productive discussion. It seems you are either unwilling or incapable of discussing this material without distorting it.
-
Sven,
Idiot? Really?
Can you please point out for me specifically where CBM said that there was would be no housing component on his golf course that had been mentioned consistently from 1904 through 1906 or that he wouldn't be apportioning extra land for other purposes as outlined in his original agreement.
Factual evidence...not what you think is "common sense", because some of us don't agree.
Thanks.
**ADDED** And as far as trying to "muddy the water" of this debate, I'm trying to lighten the tone.
We've reached a point where a plan for member's "bungaloes" appearing in an article in summer 1908 has been brought to our attention and we're now arguing that they were basically port-o-potties with a safe.
If you can't see the humor in that you should reconsider and lighten up. Thanks.
-
Mike:
Where are the 90 acres available for 1.5 acre lots?
Where are the Bungalows?
Where are the cabins/cottages?
Look at what he did, not what he did or didn't say.
To respond in a general way to your last post, look at what you just wrote. You make the statement that the housing was consistently mentioned from 1904 through 1906. It may have been, but was it consistently mentioned by CBM? Was it mentioned by him at all as more than a possibility? Was it being consistently mentioned because different outlets were citing his one mention of a proposed plan that may or may not have been a binding point in his recruitment of founding members?
If you can't understand how you twist facts into unviable and unsupportable conclusions, and then use those conclusions as new facts, you really don't understand what it is like for the rest of us who are trying to work with the information available without getting too far down the road of speculation.
Sven
-
Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.
With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?
From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20Right_zpssmooeeqp.jpg)
-
Sven,
I know what he built; it's self-evident.
He acquired 200 acres and built the course using 160-165 of those acres for the golf course. Those are the fact, again self-evident.
But the discussion, or debate as you called it, is when the original plan he outlined in 1904, that was called ingenious by Whigham in the spring of 1906, that was reiterated in Dec 1906 news reports without rebuttal got changed into what got built on the property starting in May 1907.
Don't confuse what got built with what may have been originally intended. If you're content to just credit CBM as architect and aren't all that interested in the process that's fine too but I think these details are fascinating.
-
Is there a bigger out and back routed "core" golf course on the planet? For comparison, does anyone know the total acreage taken up by The Old Course?
-
Sven,
I know what he built; it's self-evident.
He acquired 200 acres and built the course using 160-165 of those acres for the golf course. Those are the fact, again self-evident.
But the discussion, or debate as you called it, is when the original plan he outlined in 1904, that was called ingenious by Whigham in the spring of 1906, that was reiterated in Dec 1906 news reports without rebuttal got changed into what got built on the property starting in May 1907.
Don't confuse what got built with what may have been originally intended. If you're content to just credit CBM as architect and aren't all that interested in the process that's fine too but I think these details are fascinating.
We've been down this road Mike.
I am not convinced that he thought of the housing component as more than just an idea of what to do with extra land if there was any. But all of that changed when he compiled his thoughts on an ideal course, and actually started looking in earnest at a real piece of property. That span of time between June and October 1906 is a highly relevant yet lightly documented period.
The difference between you and I on this point is that you think that he was bound by the terms in the subscription proposal, or at least was trying to honor them. I think that he didn't give a crap if there was any extra land, all he was concerned about was procuring a suitable piece of land and building as good a course as possible. I also happen to believe that he had a fairly good idea as to what that course would look like before he took the option, and that concept did not include any areas specifically set aside to provide for the 1.5 acre plots.
You and I both have been teased with purported evidence that he was going to try to abide by the housing promise with respect to the 120 acre parcel by the canal. I don't see how that could be possible, but I'll wait to see what the evidence holds when and if it is presented. In any case, this was a different piece of land, and at a time prior to his trip abroad, thus prior to the finalization of his concept.
Sven
-
Here's an article for Bryan or anyone else looking into the clubhouse issues. In May 1910, the club worked out a deal to use the Shinnecock clubhouse. Certainly not an ideal situation, but it appears it sufficed until the club was able to build a permanent structure.
The article also provides a little insight to the relationship between the two clubs at the time.
May 7, 1910 - The Evening Post
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20-%20The%20Evening%20Post%20May%207%201910_zpsvzru8alp.png)
-
Sven,
Thanks for that and I understand and appreciate your opinion.
I just looked it up and The Old Course is approximately 95 acres. CBM had seen several of the famous holes many times before his 1906 trip abroad. He had written in 1904 that he needed 110 acres for the course and reportedly offered for 120 acres for this project. He later built courses like Lido on 120 acres and recommended that among to other clubs after NGLA.
Here he sought 200 acres and eventually used 165 measuring generously.
-
Sven,
Thanks for that and I understand and appreciate your opinion.
I just looked it up and The Old Course is approximately 95 acres. CBM had seen several of the famous holes many times before his 1906 trip abroad. He had written in 1904 that he needed 110 acres for the course and reportedly offered for 120 acres for this project. He later built courses like Lido on 120 acres and recommended that among to other clubs after NGLA.
Here he sought 200 acres and eventually used 165 measuring generously.
Mike:
We talked about this as well. Not sure why we keep circling back.
It is all dependent on the land, the holes he wanted to build and how those two aspects work together.
If you are insinuating anything further, please spit it out. Its no fun trying to read between the lines, and I want to make sure you don't accuse me of conceding to something I haven't.
Sven
-
Sven,
Honestly, I have a few formative thoughts but I'm still in the discovery process. Although you and presumably David may find my questions idiotic or frustrating I personally think this has led to a good overall discussion and a fair amount of new information brought forward.
I sense you feel we already know most of what we need to know so I'm sorry if that is incorrect but you seem to have predisposition in some areas I don't think are settled at all so that may be the source of friction I'm sensing from you. That's ok.. as long as we keep it mutually respectful.
-
Mike:
I think you're reading me wrong.
I don't think we know everything we need to know (quite the opposite, actually), and I am open to changing my opinions on what happened when and if new information comes to light. But I do look at every report with a critical eye, and as we've discovered not everyone got it exactly right back then (or in the interim).
If you're sensing any sort of predisposition on my part, isn't that the nature of debate? There are quite a few ideas presented on this thread that didn't add up, the purchase of the land the clubhouse now sits on being one of them. If I ruffled any feathers in the discussions on those points by disagreeing with the initial premise, all I can say is if something doesn't make sense, I'm not going to let it slide. So sorry for that.
Sven
-
Sven,
I appreciate you clarifying your position for my understanding. Thanks and it's much appreciated.
-
We've reached a point where a plan for member's "bungaloes" appearing in an article in summer 1908 has been brought to our attention and we're now arguing that they were basically port-o-potties with a safe.
If you can't see the humor in that you should reconsider and lighten up. Thanks.
While you obviously think you are quite funny with this sort of mocking, absurdist crap, this is precisely the kind of thing that makes reasonable conversation with you so difficult. The article described the structures as small bungalows which can contain lockers, baths, and necessities. Rather than accept this or even seriously consider it, you choose to incessantly mock it. Even your offline mentor has explained to you what was likely being described, but you won't let that stop you. You just continue with the Beavis-and-Butthead routine.
You know that what you are saying is wrong and/or misleading, but you say it anyway for rhetorical effect.
-
David,
You don't understand the absurdity of what your implying? Did you miss my followup questions or answers to the person you're calling my mentor, aka "the Lurker"?
You're suggesting that these bungaloes were limited to areas to poop, wash up, and store valuables, with not enough room to bed down for the night. What's more, you've suggested that they would be built at members expense on land still wholly owned by the club.
How else could I possibly respond? If I ever suggested something so ridiculous you'd never let me hear the end of it and rightly so!
Your stronger argument was that these dwellings were a planned concession to the fire at the Inn a few months prior, which is possible. But in trying to eliminate what might have been the last vestiges of a scaled down attempt at implenting the original Founders Agreement you turned bungaloes into bathrooms and there's no way in Hades that's what was planned.
-
Sven,
Idiot? Really?
Can you please point out for me specifically where CBM said that there was would be no housing component on his golf course that had been mentioned consistently from 1904 through 1906 or that he wouldn't be apportioning extra land for other purposes as outlined in his original agreement.
Mike,
I reviewed all of the documents along with "Scotland's Gift" and I can't find, specifically, where CBM said that there was to be no movie theatre on his golf course. I also didn't see where he said that there wouldn't be a double decker driving range.
You can't be serious in putting forth the proposition that because CBM state that there would be no ____ (fill in the blank) that that meant that he was planning on introducing same
Factual evidence...not what you think is "common sense", because some of us don't agree.
Other than you, who doesn't agree ?
Would you please answer the question I asked you about CBM creating homes flanking the fairways.
Thanks
Thanks.
**ADDED** And as far as trying to "muddy the water" of this debate, I'm trying to lighten the tone.
You sure fooled me😜
We've reached a point where a plan for member's "bungaloes" appearing in an article in summer 1908 has been brought to our attention and we're now arguing that they were basically port-o-potties with a safe.
Mike, if we've learned one thing in the past decade+ discussing architecture, it's how inaccurate and unreliable contemporaneous newspaper accounts are
If you can't see the humor in that you should reconsider and lighten up. Thanks.
-
Mike,
The theory you've put forth is patently insane, which is far beyond moronic.
I want you to try to answer the following question honestly.
Do you really think that CBM, after all his study abroad, after the creation of his ideal holes, after his initial design at Chicago, would create his "Ideal Golf Course" with homes between the holes and flanking each fairway ? ? ?
Don't make any attempts to divert or deflect the above question, all that's required of you is a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
So, what is it, "yes" or "no"
Would you also cite where he utilized that "model" on any of the subsequent courses he designed ?
David,
I know you're aware of the large "bathing house" on the beach below the flagpole on # 18.
Mike, maybe CBM bought all that acreage at Ballysheer for his cottages.😜
-
Pat
1. What is the longest golf hole you could build within the confines of a circular 2.5 acre piece of land ?
I'll give you a hint for starters (Area = pi * r squared)
I don't need a hint, anyone familiar with the land will tell you that if it wasn't used for the clubhouse, you'd incorporate it into the current 1st hole.
Before you tuck your tail in and run, How many times have you been to NGLA ?
2. Given that there is a 40 foot high knob in the middle of that circle,
There is NO 40 foot high knob in the middle of the circle. Where did you obtain that information from ?
And, even if there was, earth moving equipment would make short order of it.
That parcel of property is amongst the most ideal land for golf on the entire 205 acres ,
what sort of golf hole would you suggest be built on such a site?
Part of a great one
3. How would that golf hole fit into the tentative routing that had already been formulated (Leven, Sahara, Alps, etc.)?
It would fit perfectly, just by making # 1 a slight dogleg
Rich
PS--That's the last you'll hear from me on this thread, as all everybody is doing (including me) is guessing, and it is getting not only boring but downright irritating.
There's NO guessing about the land that the clubhouse sits on, it's great land for golf.
You declared that it was "ungolfable" but have yet to define how so.
Before you run, how many times have you played NGLA ?
-
Given that CBM had already told them that his club was not going into the beds business, I guess they'd have to find somewhere else to sleep other than their on-site locker in the bath room. I'm sure they could manage.
Where did they sleep? Your bungalows never got built.
David,
Despite CBM's protestations about "beds and hash", it turns out that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down he did both, and rather well, when he built the clubhouse, so he did perceive the need for onsite lodging and met it.
There are numerous bedrooms upstairs in the clubhouse and you may have heard they serve a hell of a lobster roll at lunch.
Mike,
The massive clubhouse at NGLA does not have "numerous" bedrooms upstairs.
The have a limited number of bedrooms
Nothing in capacity like the SI
I know I've asked you this before, but do you really think that CBM would build his clubhouse next to a massive hotel ?
Especially if he had no access to the North Road ?.
If you're out there sometime call me and I'll buy you a Southsider.
-
Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.
With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?
From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.
Sven,
Not only is there room in the middle, but the White's Lane driveway extension, complete with the circle and clubhouse are in that model.
If you're accurate with your date, it Proves that the clubhouse was intended for it's current site PRIOR to the fire that destroyed the Shinnecock Inn
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20Right_zpssmooeeqp.jpg)
-
Sven,
If the model you posted was crafted prior to April, 1908, it would prove, unequivocally, that CBM always intended for his clubhouse to be on its current site.
Can you confirm the date the model was started ?
Is there anyone who would dispute that if the model was completed prior to April, 2008, that CBM always intended his clubhouse to reside on it's current site ?
Bryan ?
Mike ?
Anyone ?
-
Sven, Mike & David,
Macdonald tells us, indirectly, but forcefully, that he NEVER intended to have homes bordering the golf course.
Macdonald stated: "When playing golf you want to be ALONE WITH NATURE"
Would houses between the holes and houses flanking the holes put you ALONE WITH NATURE ?
I think not.
Macdonald also stated, when discussing his 205 acres: "The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, where THOROUGHFARES and railroads would NEVER BOTHER US----- A MUCH DESIRED SITUATION"
Here Macdonald is telling us he wants to be away from roads, but if he was to build homes, he'd have to build roads to access those homes.
Mike, your theory, meant to undermine accepted beliefs about NGLA and Macdonald, is beyond moronic.
There's not an element of common sense in your theory, a theory that states that he meant to build homes between the holes along with building homes on the flanks of the holes.
I anxiously await your next hairbrained theory😆
-
David,
You don't understand the absurdity of what your implying? Did you miss my followup questions or answers to the person you're calling my mentor, aka "the Lurker"?
You're suggesting that these bungaloes were limited to areas to poop, wash up, and store valuables, with not enough room to bed down for the night. What's more, you've suggested that they would be built at members expense on land still wholly owned by the club.
How else could I possibly respond? If I ever suggested something so ridiculous you'd never let me hear the end of it and rightly so!
Your stronger argument was that these dwellings were a planned concession to the fire at the Inn a few months prior, which is possible. But in trying to eliminate what might have been the last vestiges of a scaled down attempt at implenting the original Founders Agreement you turned bungaloes into bathrooms and there's no way in Hades that's what was planned.
This is exactly the sort of crap that I am talking about, Mike, and thank you for making my point for me. Rather than considering and discussing the actual factual record, you make shit up and launch into your usual mockery, feigned disbelief, and indignation. Perhaps you should pause and think back to all of the times you have done the same about my interpretations in the past, and all of the corresponding times you have ultimately been proven wrong. We could make a list, but it would add too much to an already excessive thread.
I don't care if you or anyone else disagrees with my interpretation.There is nothing wrong with disagreement between reasonable and intelligent people who are doing their best to try to figure out a spotty historical record. It happens all the time between many of us, but rarely with you. You are either unwilling or unable to engage in such a discussion.
I'll try to piece together and address your actual factual argument below, but it isn't easy, because you don't really seem to have much of a position other than your mockery and mischaracterizations, and telling me again and again how "absurd" and "ridiculous" you find my interpretation.
-
Against my better judgment, I will give you the courtesy you fail to give me, and actually take your comments and questions seriously. My questions are in bold.
You asked if I read your followups with TEPaul, whom you call "The Lurker," although given his sleazy habit of sending unwanted, harassing, and downright creepy emails to me and others, I'd say that "The Stalker" is a more apt description. I've read the comments you posted.
- Unless "the Stalker" was there in 1908, I don't much care about his opinion of whether this particular unidentified founder might have used the term bungalow instead of cabana or bath house.
- Note that in describing these structures, "The Stalker" said: "Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations." That is the type of arrangement I believe the Founder is describing.
1. If this is commonplace at other Southampton clubs, then why are you so dismayed at the idea that it might have been considered (but not implemented) at NGLA?
2. What if anything in the article suggests to you that CBM was planning to transfer title on the land for these "small bungalows" to individual founders?
3. How do you reconcile this with the developer's statement that restrictions had been placed on the use of the property?
The Stalker described the following:
Regarding the mention in that article of bungalows with lockers, baths and necessary facilities, that might refer to what was commonly known in those types of clubs as "bath houses" or even "cabanas." Out there in the prominent old clubs on Long Island, also clubs in Palm Beach, the Bahamas etc, etc, they were very common and actually a rather generic design-----they are basically little white huts that are about ten feet wide and maybe twenty feet deep. In the front they generally have an awning off the structure with lounge chairs under it, and behind that a little hut structure that can contain a sitting room, toilets/changing rooms and showers. In clubs like Maidstone, the famous old Beach Club of Southamption, the beach clubs of the Creek Club and Piping Rock, the Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach and Delray etc, etc, these little structures sit side by side and can go on for maybe 50 to 75 yards (although at Maidstone's Beach Clubs their configurations and placements are quite different). They are all generally identical and are lined up perfectly perpendicular to the shore line. Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."
4. Is it your position that the founder couldn't possibly be referring to similar structures, whatever called?
Earlier you suggested that CBM's description of the "Bathing Facilities" was just a reference to a shared locker room in the clubhouse. I don't think this is correct. Here is the description in full:
Bathing Facilities. Realizing the importance of having proper bathing facilities immediately, I took the liberty, after consulting with some of the Directors and all of the Founders whom I met, of assuming temporarily the expense of building a bathing pavilion. I guaranteed the payment for this work—four thousand dollars—and freed the club of any liability. Some ten Founders at once stated that they would subscribe $200 each, entitling them to two dressing rooms, one for men and one for women. Following this idea, the plan now suggested is that any Founder or Associate Member desiring a dressing room may have one by subscribing $100, which will entitle him to one room, this to remain his personal property. Should more rooms be taken than are built, others can be erected in the same manner.
He isn't talking about a shared dressing room, he is talking about private dressing rooms which would be the "personal property" of the Founder or Member. And, he is talking about building additional dressing rooms as needed and paid for. The plan shares certain characteristics with the founder's description. Private dressing rooms, owned (as personal property, not real property) by the members.
5. You've mocked and ridiculed me for suggesting that NGLA would allocate private dressing rooms to members willing to pay for such things. Are you going to likewise mock and ridicule CBM for doing the same thing? Does it really make a difference whether the rooms were separate structures?
-
Pat,
CBM wrote that you want to be alone with nature right after telling us he first offered the developer $200 per acre for 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal, smack dab in the middle of a planned housing development.
He also wrote the more than 3 blind shots was abhorrent and that 50 yard wide fairways were ideal. Like many people there was sometimes a gap between what he wrote and said, particularly 20+ years after the fact, and what he did.
I'm not the one who came up with the real estate plan, Macdonald did. Whigham called it ingenious in 1906.
Have you played in Scotland and England? Many of the courses there are in town and many are near housing.
-
Jeff,
Regarding the agreement to secure 200 acres signed on December 14th, 1906, here's how CBM was quoted the next day;
"We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long. The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to us in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."
And what were the committee going to be working on in the interim?
"We will reproduce the best holes and make the most delightful round that can be conceived. Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months."
To me, the "all concerned" who are giving Macdonald "latitude" in his agreement is the Real Estate Company, who certainly wanted to see Macdonald achieve his goal of creating the best course on the planet near their planned development.
Why stake out land only to have to do it all again after determining which holes to reproduce and their distances? The Real Estate Company had no plans for the rest of Sebonac Neck at that time and the land certainly wasn't going anywhere. These were very practical men.
Why incur that needless waste of time and money?
Mike,
My post the other day was a long shot, but since many are tiring of dissecting the same old passages, I thought maybe someone would find something in another perspective that might help narrow the timeline. I know an option can contain probably anything two parties agree to, but also wondered just what the real estate company might have put up with for the idealistic golfers vs. standard business practice. If Charlie pissed them off, they might have made him wear a dress and ride those ponies side saddle as part of the option, for all we know.
That said, let's examine yet another phrases you bring up above:
Does latitude equal total freedom, or minor changes in the final plan, at least at that point?
Does "exact lines will not be staked out" imply that some preliminary lines HAVE been staked out?
I have always staked out a middle ground between you and David (and final staking may be yet to come, similar to NGLA) know we will need the original agreements to see how narrowed down the property was by the time of the option. I am certain the course wasn't routed in a 2-3 day pony ride (CBM doesn't say it, and it would be difficult) and not sure it had to be fully routed by October, but do think CBM did enough work (possibly David's "rough routing") to get somewhere close to that property line on the blueprint. Going back to the real estate company perspective, I can imagine this conversation...."Charlie, you have been tearing up our land on pony since June, can you give us some idea of where you are looking before we commit to this option?"
That said, that property line does seem to be the final, not some preliminary, since it was a map used for construction.
-
Mike,
I also think we are reading another passage from Scotland's Gift wrong.....He really meant to say, "After playing golf, you want to be alone when nature calls."
-
Against my better judgment, I will give you the courtesy you fail to give me, and actually take your comments and questions seriously. My questions are in bold.
You asked if I read your followups with TEPaul, whom you call "The Lurker," although given his sleazy habit of sending unwanted, harassing, and downright creepy emails to me and others, I'd say that "The Stalker" is a more apt description. I've read the comments you posted.
- Unless "the Stalker" was there in 1908, I don't much care about his opinion of whether this particular unidentified founder might have used the term bungalow instead of cabana or bath house.
- Note that in describing these structures, "The Stalker" said: "Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations." That is the type of arrangement I believe the Founder is describing.
1. If this is commonplace at other Southampton clubs, then why are you so dismayed at the idea that it might have been considered (but not implemented) at NGLA?
2. What if anything in the article suggests to you that CBM was planning to transfer title on the land for these "small bungalows" to individual founders?
3. How do you reconcile this with the developer's statement that restrictions had been placed on the use of the property?
The Stalker described the following:
Regarding the mention in that article of bungalows with lockers, baths and necessary facilities, that might refer to what was commonly known in those types of clubs as "bath houses" or even "cabanas." Out there in the prominent old clubs on Long Island, also clubs in Palm Beach, the Bahamas etc, etc, they were very common and actually a rather generic design-----they are basically little white huts that are about ten feet wide and maybe twenty feet deep. In the front they generally have an awning off the structure with lounge chairs under it, and behind that a little hut structure that can contain a sitting room, toilets/changing rooms and showers. In clubs like Maidstone, the famous old Beach Club of Southamption, the beach clubs of the Creek Club and Piping Rock, the Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach and Delray etc, etc, these little structures sit side by side and can go on for maybe 50 to 75 yards (although at Maidstone's Beach Clubs their configurations and placements are quite different). They are all generally identical and are lined up perfectly perpendicular to the shore line. Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."
4. Is it your position that the founder couldn't possibly be referring to similar structures, whatever called?
Earlier you suggested that CBM's description of the "Bathing Facilities" was just a reference to a shared locker room in the clubhouse. I don't think this is correct. Here is the description in full:
Bathing Facilities. Realizing the importance of having proper bathing facilities immediately, I took the liberty, after consulting with some of the Directors and all of the Founders whom I met, of assuming temporarily the expense of building a bathing pavilion. I guaranteed the payment for this work—four thousand dollars—and freed the club of any liability. Some ten Founders at once stated that they would subscribe $200 each, entitling them to two dressing rooms, one for men and one for women. Following this idea, the plan now suggested is that any Founder or Associate Member desiring a dressing room may have one by subscribing $100, which will entitle him to one room, this to remain his personal property. Should more rooms be taken than are built, others can be erected in the same manner.
He isn't talking about a shared dressing room, he is talking about private dressing rooms which would be the "personal property" of the Founder or Member. And, he is talking about building additional dressing rooms as needed and paid for. The plan shares certain characteristics with the founder's description. Private dressing rooms, owned (as personal property, not real property) by the members.
5. You've mocked and ridiculed me for suggesting that NGLA would allocate private dressing rooms to members willing to pay for such things. Are you going to likewise mock and ridicule CBM for doing the same thing? Does it really make a difference whether the rooms were separate structures?
David,
If I offended you, I sincerely apologize. I've made my share of blunders here in speculating, or theorizing, or trying to defend a position and I'll likely do it again in the future. I was simply trying to lighten the often strident, argumentative tone here. Sometimes humor doesn't translate well on this flat medium but I'll keep in mind that no one likes being the butt of jokes.
I think my major objection to your post is that you essentially sought to change the very definition of the word "bungalow". I'm not big on Wikipedia, but I've been unable to find its usage in the US or England to imply anything but a dwelling. If you can find something, let me know but I think this link is pretty extensive and comprehensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow
I do think it's possible that this came up again as an option after the Shinnecock Inn burned to the ground. Later today, as prodded by Sven yesterday, I'll stick my neck out (and likely have it chopped) and offer up a theory of how events played out that I think is consistent with all of the facts we know to date.
To answer your specific questions above;
1) Because the founder specifically called it a "bungalow" and I think we have to take it at face value that the founder knew what a bungalow was. The little units at other places the Lurker referred to were never called bungalows and I can find no evidence otherwise.
2) The term "apportioned" to me means parceled off. Whether this implied legal transfer is unclear and might be restricted by CBM's agreement with the developer. I suspect it might still be owned by the club as the lot sizes were likely anticipated to be much smaller than an acre.
3) I'd love for us to find that original agreement. I suspect that large estate homes or even cottages on 1.5 acres may have fallen out of the terms of the agreement with the Developer but smaller "bungalows" on something much less than an acre still under club ownership were not. That's a guess.
4) Yes, for reasons described above.
5) I think we're talking about an evolving scenario that is something of a moving target. I'm hopeful that I get a chance to theorize in full this afternoon and the answer will be contained within.
Thanks.
-
Mike,
I also think we are reading another passage from Scotland's Gift wrong.....He really meant to say, "After playing golf, you want to be alone when nature calls."
Jeff,
Does a founder do it in the brambles?
-
There's been so much discussion about roads and the relative lack thereof when NGLA first opened. My question is When did Shrubland Road appear? Was it already there in some fashion when NGLA was built? If it was there, did MacDonald ever try to have it moved? Was it built at a the border of two separate parcels?
-
My post the other day was a long shot, but since many are tiring of dissecting the same old passages, I thought maybe someone would find something in another perspective that might help narrow the timeline. I know an option can contain probably anything two parties agree to, but also wondered just what the real estate company might have put up with for the idealistic golfers vs. standard business practice. If Charlie pissed them off, they might have made him wear a dress and ride those ponies side saddle as part of the option, for all we know.
That said, let's examine yet another phrases you bring up above:
Does latitude equal total freedom, or minor changes in the final plan, at least at that point?
Does "exact lines will not be staked out" imply that some preliminary lines HAVE been staked out?
I have always staked out a middle ground between you and David (and final staking may be yet to come, similar to NGLA) know we will need the original agreements to see how narrowed down the property was by the time of the option. I am certain the course wasn't routed in a 2-3 day pony ride (CBM doesn't say it, and it would be difficult) and not sure it had to be fully routed by October, but do think CBM did enough work (possibly David's "rough routing") to get somewhere close to that property line on the blueprint. Going back to the real estate company perspective, I can imagine this conversation...."Charlie, you have been tearing up our land on pony since June, can you give us some idea of where you are looking before we commit to this option?"
That said, that property line does seem to be the final, not some preliminary, since it was a map used for construction.
Jeff Brauer,
If you're going to start typing your questions in GREEN I'm going to get very confused here! ;)
1) It seems it's legally possible to have an option that specifies some amount of land like 200 acres within a larger parcel, in this case 450 acres. If the boundaries of that 200 acres were subject to change, why go through the time and effort and cost beforehand? The Developer had no plans for the rest of the 450 acres so I think if we found it, the specifics of that option would be very general as I described (i.e. eastern shore of Sebonac neck stretching along...blah blah blah.)
2) I think what he meant is that he knew the general area as he described from the Shinnecock Inn, swinging down to Bullshead Bay, up to Peconic Bay before swinging back, measuring the two miles out and estimating it needing to be about 4 acres wide on average to encompass his desired 200 acres at that point. This would encompass the handful of natural holes he had found as well as other interesting land features he and Whigham (and Travis?) had identified at that time.
I think a good indication of how uncertain the golf course routing was at that juncture was CBM's reference to the Shinnecock Inn which was being constructed at that time. On December 15, 1906 he was quoted saying;
"A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests."
Macdonald knew at that point that he needed to start and end his golf course within reasonable walking distance of the Shinnecock Inn, by necessity.
However, because he hadn't routed the course, he wasn't even sure where his first tee would be located yet.
As far as the maps showing undulations, you may have missed it earlier but I don't believe a contour map of Sebonac Neck was drawn and sent abroad as some have interpreted. Instead, I think the "maps showing elevation in feet..." were of some of the hole concepts and other notes CBM took abroad that he had "draughtsmen" create on his return.
I also think the blueprint was created in the spring of 1907 during the formal design process as Raynor was employed to help him with the purchase, surveying the property, and then creating a contour map as CBM later described.
I hope this helps.
-
Mike,
Sorry about that! I got to thinking red is a confrontational color, and I might inadvertently be angering some without them knowing why.........
We agree on your point 2, but differ a bit on what it means. He would have had some at least rudimentary property maps to study in June (SHPB surely had a property survey,( or they wouldn't know it was 450 acres, even with no topo, etc.) from when they bought it. It should have allowed some study of what property it would take. Time and documents will tell.
As to point 1, if CBM had described that land pretty exactly in his communications, it implies he knew where it was. I do think we tend to compress all this process into a linear string, but humans do change their mind (not next to SHCC, then next to SHCC as one example) Or, to use your example, he might have decided on this configuration, but then his committee saw the Sabin land (or something else) and it was reconsidered again for a while.
One small thing I note on the blueprint is that the property line (to this day) is east of where 9 and 10 are. I am not sure of the specifics, but it sure appears that he intended 1 and 18 further east than they ended up. Whether he founds some contour he felt made a better green site for 9, or just decided he wanted to be closer to the Inn, we don't know, but those two features are crammed up against the property line, when we know he wanted to be in the middle of nature, with little possibility of surrounding land encroaching on his dream. Yet another example of what is written not exactly matching up with what they did.
As to when the blueprint was created, the original would have been drawn on linen. The first iteration might have been just property lines, and they could have added the hash marks later on linen and made a new print. The features could have been added on linen as a revision and a new print made, the property lines could have been changed and reprinted,etc. (However, it was pretty typical that you could see erasures on those kinds of things)
So, while I agree that map was created to guide construction (thus putting it no later than probably January 1907) at least a base map, with minimum information like property lines, was likely created earlier.
Cheers.
-
Mike,
Sorry about that! I got to thinking red is a confrontational color, and I might inadvertently be angering some without them knowing why.........
We agree on your point 2, but differ a bit on what it means. He would have had some at least rudimentary property maps to study in June (SHPB surely had a property survey,( or they wouldn't know it was 450 acres, even with no topo, etc.) from when they bought it. It should have allowed some study of what property it would take. Time and documents will tell.
As to point 1, if CBM had described that land pretty exactly in his communications, it implies he knew where it was. I do think we tend to compress all this process into a linear string, but humans do change their mind (not next to SHCC, then next to SHCC as one example) Or, to use your example, he might have decided on this configuration, but then his committee saw the Sabin land (or something else) and it was reconsidered again for a while.
One small thing I note on the blueprint is that the property line (to this day) is east of where 9 and 10 are. I am not sure of the specifics, but it sure appears that he intended 1 and 18 further east than they ended up. Whether he founds some contour he felt made a better green site for 9, or just decided he wanted to be closer to the Inn, we don't know, but those two features are crammed up against the property line, when we know he wanted to be in the middle of nature, with little possibility of surrounding land encroaching on his dream. Yet another example of what is written not exactly matching up with what they did.
As to when the blueprint was created, the original would have been drawn on linen. The first iteration might have been just property lines, and they could have added the hash marks later on linen and made a new print. The features could have been added on linen as a revision and a new print made, the property lines could have been changed and reprinted,etc. (However, it was pretty typical that you could see erasures on those kinds of things)
So, while I agree that map was created to guide construction (thus putting it no later than probably January 1907) at least a base map, with minimum information like property lines, was likely created earlier.
Cheers.
Jeff,
Thanks for that explanation. It would certainly be fascinating to find the original documents.
Just one note in response. I believe construction started in May 1907 after planning was completed and they hired Mortimer Payne to lead construction, if that affects your timeline thinking.
-
Mike,
It looks as if it was created as a planning document. Even with your timeline, that would put it in the five month period starting after the option, no? David might think it was created even earlier. Finding the actual time record would be great.
-
Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.
With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?
From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20Right_zpssmooeeqp.jpg)
Sven,
I agree there was land in the middle. It might have been left for a future clubhouse, but I am not convinced it was "unequivocally" intended originally for clubhouse as Pat contends, because:
1. It makes sense that a hole nears the water would hug the bluffs
2. It makes sense that a hole named valley would be placed in the natural valley.....
3. CBM left a similar amount of wiggle room in many areas
4. If he did intend it to be the clubhouse, he sure didn't do any pre-planning studies, because it wasn't big enough for pro shop, the parking is not exactly adjacent, etc. Not that it had to be done to more modern standards, but it never struck me as being well planned.
Just my perspective, and of course, I could be wrong. Time may tell.
Cheers.
-
Agreed on both counts, Jeff. Thanks.
-
I think a good indication of how uncertain the golf course routing was at that juncture was CBM's reference to the Shinnecock Inn which was being constructed at that time. On December 15, 1906 he was quoted saying;
"A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests."
Macdonald knew at that point that he needed to start and end his golf course within reasonable walking distance of the Shinnecock Inn, by necessity.
However, because he hadn't routed the course, he wasn't even sure where his first tee would be located yet.
Mike:
You're doing it again.
Isn't it possible that he knew where the first tee was going to be, but wasn't exactly sure where the Inn would be? Or that he knew they both were in an approximate area, and was guesstimating the distance as he hadn't paced it out?
I don't think that statement tells us anything more than he thought the two locations were going to be close. If anything, it certainly makes it sound like he had the starting point for the course pretty much nailed down.
Sven
-
Sven,
I agree there was land in the middle. It might have been left for a future clubhouse, but I am not convinced it was "unequivocally" intended originally for clubhouse as Pat contends, because:
1. It makes sense that a hole nears the water would hug the bluffs
2. It makes sense that a hole named valley would be placed in the natural valley.....
3. CBM left a similar amount of wiggle room in many areas
4. If he did intend it to be the clubhouse, he sure didn't do any pre-planning studies, because it wasn't big enough for pro shop, the parking is not exactly adjacent, etc. Not that it had to be done to more modern standards, but it never struck me as being well planned.
Just my perspective, and of course, I could be wrong. Time may tell.
Cheers.
Jeff:
You can take up the "unequivocally" part with Pat. I'm more interested in whether or not alterations were ever made to the course due to the clubhouse being built.
If the plaster model predates the siting of the clubhouse at that location, it would appear that 1 and 18 have pretty much been in the same spots throughout.
Agreed?
Sven
-
Isn't it possible that he knew where the first tee was going to be, but wasn't exactly sure where the Inn would be? Or that he knew they both were in an approximate area, and was guesstimating the distance as he hadn't paced it out?
I don't think that statement tells us anything more than he thought the two locations were going to be close. If anything, it certainly makes it sound like he had the starting point for the course pretty much nailed down.
Sven
Sven,
Good points, all possible, although I believe they had picked out a site for the Inn by that time.
We know he needed it to be close to his starting and ending points for the golf course.
However, I also think the fact that David measured his route out two miles from the location of the Shinnecock Inn, not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain he knew precisely where the Inn would be by December when he signed the option. Recall that Macdonald said he had secured two miles long by 4 acres wide.
-
Sven,
Good points, all possible, although I believe they had picked out a site for the Inn by that time.
We know he needed it to be close to his starting and ending points for the golf course.
However, I also think the fact that David measured his route out two miles from the location of the Shinnecock Inn, not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain he knew precisely where the Inn would be by December when he signed the option. Recall that Macdonald said he had secured two miles long by 4 acres wide.
Which all sounds to me like general descriptions. Its not like he was actually plotting the property and setting the metes and bounds in those quotes.
If someone asked me how far the first tee at Old Mac was from the Proshop, I'd probably say 200 or 300 yards, even though I walk it multiple times a week.
The point is, I wouldn't be drawing any larger conclusions from those statements. Particularly, I don't think you can draw any conclusion as to whether or not he had routed the course at that point based on the use of "200 or 300 yards."
Sven
-
Sven,
I agree there was land in the middle. It might have been left for a future clubhouse, but I am not convinced it was "unequivocally" intended originally for clubhouse as Pat contends, because:
1. It makes sense that a hole nears the water would hug the bluffs
2. It makes sense that a hole named valley would be placed in the natural valley.....
3. CBM left a similar amount of wiggle room in many areas
4. If he did intend it to be the clubhouse, he sure didn't do any pre-planning studies, because it wasn't big enough for pro shop, the parking is not exactly adjacent, etc. Not that it had to be done to more modern standards, but it never struck me as being well planned.
Just my perspective, and of course, I could be wrong. Time may tell.
Cheers.
Jeff:
You can take up the "unequivocally" part with Pat. I'm more interested in whether or not alterations were ever made to the course due to the clubhouse being built.
If the plaster model predates the siting of the clubhouse at that location, it would appear that 1 and 18 have pretty much been in the same spots throughout.
Agreed?
Sven
Sven, I have been told 18 green moved as a result of the clubhouse, but I am not sure.....
-
Sven,
It's surely not dispositive but I do think it provides some insight into where they were in the planning process at that time.
Because members were going to need to walk from the Inn to that first tee and then back to the Inn from the 18th green I would think that yardage would be something CBM would have wanted to be pretty precise about before starting his routing.
-
Sven,
It's surely not dispositive but I do think it provides some insight into where they were in the planning process at that time.
Because members were going to need to walk from the Inn to that first tee and then back to the Inn from the 18th green I would think that yardage would be something CBM would have wanted to be pretty precise about before starting his routing.
I don't think he cared how far it was beyond it being a short walk.
Sven
-
Mike,
Did CBM not write that 200-300 yards when he was in his early 70's. Darn good memory to remember it even as close as 200-300 yards. By today's measurement it is 280 yards, less to the back of the then 18th green. I agree with Sven, it matters only that it was close, not precisely what it was.
Sven,
Is the picture of the model yours? Do you have a picture of the whole thing? Is there no indication on it of its date? The cape hole is in the bay, so I guess it predates when that was moved.
-
Bryan,
He was quoted saying that on Dec 15th 1906. Thanks for the exact measurement.
-
I stand corrected.
-
There's been so much discussion about roads and the relative lack thereof when NGLA first opened. My question is When did Shrubland Road appear? Was it already there in some fashion when NGLAI'd guess that as built? If it was there, did MacDonald ever try to have it moved? Was it built at a the border of two separate parcels?
If you look back at post #896 I overlaid the 1904 USGS topography on the current aerial and there was an unapproved road that crossed the NGLA property where Shrubland Rd is today. So it predated NGLA. l don't know if Macdonld ever tried to move it. Since it predated NGLA I'd guess that it was the reason that the two main properties are two separate properties.
-
Holy shit, 51 pages!! It would take undaunted courage for the team of researchers attached to www.cbmacdonald.com (http://www.cbmacdonald.com/) to comb all the way through this.
So...have any new *facts* turned up relating specifically to CBM's physical presence somewhere anywhere?
-
Mark,
Not so much about CBM, but this thread could keep a team of psychologists busy for years. I understand what passive-aggressive means now..
-
I probably shouldn't try to do this with a tired brain on a Friday afternoon and I'll probably only be able to do the shorthand version of things so please be merciful. :-\
Ok...stream of consciousness time.
I really don't believe that CBM cared about providing a housing component for his members to the Ideal Course plan and I really don't believe the members cared all that much about it but I think he included it in his plans and they accepted it for two reasons;
1) Sweetening the deal of offering something financially tangible as CBM stated
2) The reality of the logistics of building a course/club several hours away from NYC and further for the rest of his National membership and needing to provide somewhere for them to stay, and do the necessities of life while visiting the club
I also think Macdonald believed he could build a course on about 110 acres. He said so, and I examined his writings about ideal holes and if anything, he was stubborn about the advent of the Haskell Ball, arguing that some holes had in fact been improved by the new, hotter ball. His basic standard was still to create a course in the 6000-6200 yard range as ideal, and railed against the trend towards making courses too long.
Certainly he knew he could get his golf course on much less than 200 acres and in fact, did, using only about 160-165 acres, measured generously with some spacious gaps between holes. Indeed, in my earlier example I mentioned he could have have parallel 50 yard wide fairways separated by another 50 yards with 30 yards on the sides of each of them and still had an acre (70 yards) available running the length of 2 miles. He had TONS of room. 200 acres on a treeless site is massive.
I think when CBM made his first offer on 120 acres near the Canal he knew of the Developer's plans for housing in the area so only bid on what he thought he needed for the 110 acres for the golf course and 10 acres for the clubhouse and parking. It's exactly what he wrote he needed for those items in the 1904 Agreement, in fact.
The idea that it was a different site so he'd need only 120 acres there and 200 acres or 67% more for the golf course on Sebonac Neck doesn't hold water for me, especially when one looks at a topographical map of the areas in question. In fact, Jeff Brauer weighed in that the second site looked even more favorable for golf in terms of landforms.
But when December 1906 came along, CBM secured 200 acres as per his original 1904 agreement that included Founders lots. Here's why I think he did it.
1) That's what he originally agreed to with the Founders
2) He was hedging his bets that he probably needed to provide some additional lodging options beyond the 30 rooms being built in the Shinnecock Inn that were to house members of Shinnecock, motorists, and National members.
3) He knew he needed to start and end his golf course near the Shinnecock Inn and he'd be an idiot not to want to get to Peconic Bay two miles away, and Macdonald was not an idiot.
4) The two major features CBM identified during his horse rides, the Alps Hill and the site for the Eden green were not conducive to his out and back routing, Measured on a slight diagnonal, it is over 700 yards from the middle of the Alps Green to the middle of the Eden green, which is a big reason that the routing of NGLA looks a bit like a snake that has swallowed a baby pig. CBM would have known this and it was certainly a problem to be solved in terms of overall land usage. Max Behr told us that Macdonald bought enough land to embrace all of the natural features he had found and these two were the furthest apart.
5) Behr also told us that in laying out the course "...no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so, a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes."
Whether CBM was restricted in terms of land usage for housing by the Development company is something to consider. However, I think it's likely that something smaller like quarter acre or half acre lots for bungalows would not have been seen as direct competition by the Developer and likely something Macdonald and the club could have done if they wanted. Indeed, one of the Founders thought they were going to build bungalows after the Shinnecock Inn burned down as seen in Bryan's article yesterday.
The following article from the April 13, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle describes a couple of related items. First, there was consideration that the Inn may be rebuilt, only this time presumably larger because the Inn was planned before it was known Macdonald was going to locate his course there, which is news to me. It would also explain why Macdonald decided to locate his first and 18th holes there originally. I think Macdonald probably saw the Inn as temporarily solving his lodging problem but hedged his bets upwards in terms of total acreage as I mentioned above.
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/517/18498907735_4563e84151_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/256/18494451392_a220d27f74_b.jpg)
So I think that the whole question of what to do with excess land, how to handle lodging needs, etc., were still on the table as of this date, and as seen in the article from July 1908 that Bryan shared yesterday.
But I also think we sometimes miss the human factor here. After many years of dreaming and planning Macdonald was now given free rein on 200 acres of land!! Can you imagine the exuberance he felt? I'm sure he pushed the limits in every way, in terms of hole options, land forms, and routing considerations so that he'd maximize the golf course in any way possible.
I'm thinking he figured he'd figure out the housing/lodging issue later and in the end, probably figured if the results were as good as he believed, he'd rather ask for forgiveness than permission.
Frankly, I don't think the issue of what to do with excess land, or how much excess land existed ever was determined. As discussed in the 1912 Letter to Founders, I think they all just agreed to table it and other options became available over time in terms of the transportation and lodging challenges and the whole issue just got tabled indefinitely..
Have a great weekend, and have mercy. ;) ;D
-
Mark,
Not so much about CBM, but this thread could keep a team of psychologists busy for years. I understand what passive-aggressive means now..
Speaking of... ;)
-
Sven,
It's surely not dispositive but I do think it provides some insight into where they were in the planning process at that time.
Because members were going to need to walk from the Inn to that first tee and then back to the Inn from the 18th green I would think that yardage would be something CBM would have wanted to be pretty precise about before starting his routing.
I don't think he cared how far it was beyond it being a short walk.
Sven
Lets not forget he had left that 6 acres for his own clubhouse, which may have added to the distance......
-
Jeff,
Shhhhh....don't tell Patrick.
-
A lot has been posted today, but I'm not sure much new has been said. I'll try to address some of it if I have tim, starting with Mike's long summary post a few above.
Mike doesn't really seem to realize it, but the first half of his post above is spent discussing why, in 1904, CBM might have included in his letter the 'for instance' about possible 1.5 Acre building lots for the Founders. While it is interesting to speculate about such things, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what happened at NGLA. I'm not going to go through it all again, except to note (despite Mike's past assertions to the contrary) no one has found any quotes by CBM reiterating his suggest with regard to NGLA. In fact his December 1906 letter to the Founders makes no mention of the real estate component, and actually suggests that "investment" section of the previous letter was outside the spirit of original idea.
In the second half of Mike's post above, he tries to come up with reasons why this 1904 suggestion ought to be read as if if it definitely applied to NGLA. Like many of Mike's stream attempts to summarize his position, it reads a lot more like "wishful thinking" than any sort of coherent analysis of the relevant source material. And therein lies the problem. Mike's theories are not fact dependent. He ignores some facts, and simply makes up others.
There are a number of examples but let me highlight just two. First, Mike wrote that CBM "was hedging his bets that he probably needed to provide some additional lodging options beyond the 30 rooms being built in the Shinnecock Inn that were to house members of Shinnecock, motorists, and National members." CBM was hedging his bets? Mike just made this up. There is nothing in the record to suggest that CBM was hedging his bets. And, given that there was a huge development planned adjacent to the course, there was no need to hedge his bets. And, the record suggests that he had agreed to the developer's restrictions on the property! Mike just ignores all of this because he really, really wants CBM to have still been interested in a housing component in December 1906, so he makes up something about CBM hedging his bets. Wishful thinking. Not historical analysis.
Second, Mike decided that he can just ignore the developer's restriction on the use of the property by making up his own limitation on the developer's limitation: "I think it's likely that something smaller like quarter acre or half acre lots for bungalows would not have been seen as direct competition by the Developer and likely something Macdonald and the club could have done if they wanted " More wishful thinking on Mike's part, especially concerning what is "likely." Without getting intocit again, that is not how these types of limitations worked. Moreover, there is nothing in the developer's statement which supports Mike's reading. (If anything, with the clubhouse example, the developer's statement implies that such small structures were NOT exempt from the limitation.)
I'll not bother to go through each of Mike's other points, but it is more of the same. Just "stream of consciousness" thoughts on how Mike would like things to have been. But historical analysis is not an exercise in creative writing where we just throw out whatever comes to mind as if it were fact. It is not writing fiction. Our theories must be based on facts, shaped by facts, and lead by facts. Mike's approach seems the opposite of this. What he considers "facts" are based on his theories, shaped by his theories, and lead by his theories.
-
However, I also think the fact that David measured his route out two miles from the location of the Shinnecock Inn, not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain he knew precisely where the Inn would be by December when he signed the option. Recall that Macdonald said he had secured two miles long by 4 acres wide.
Interesting logic on your part, Mike, but you are wrong about what I measured. Will you remain logically consistent when you learn that I actually measured to the end of CBM's property as depicted on the blueprint? By your logic, with the actual facts bracketed in:
The fact that David measured his route out two miles from the [end of the property], not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain that CBM knew precisely where [the property ended] by December when he signed the option.
So what is it going to be? Will you follow the facts (and your logic) even where the facts directly contradict your pet theory that they hadn't figured out or mapped the dimensions of the parcel this point. Or will backtrack to try and make the facts fit your theory?
___________________________________________________________________________________
Along the same lines, let's back up a bit further and look at your reasoning about CBM's statement that the first tee was 200-300 yards from the Shinnecock Inn. You argue that because CBM did not tell us exactly how far the first tee was from the Shinnecock Inn, that he hadn't yet routed the course. Sven and Bryan pointed out the rather obvious problems with this position, and I agree with them. Rather than go through it again, I'd rather focus on your reasoning, to again give you a chance to show us whether you are following facts here, or just making things up to try and support your preconceived notions.
You reason, "because he hadn't routed the course, he wasn't even sure where his first tee would be located yet." The underlying premise is that, had he known the measure, it would have been strong evidence that he had already routed the course. (I personally think even the 200-300 yard figure is pretty strong evidence that the routing process was well underway, but let's focus on an exact measure.)
Keeping your premise in mind, consider what CBM wrote about the Cape in December 1906:
"At the narrow end of Bullshead Bay, where the promontory joins the mainland, is an opportunity for a perfect water hazard to be arranged of varying widths so that a strong driver with a following wind may attempt a 240 yard carry to the green, it will also be possible to take a shorter angle to the fair green and to get home in two . . .."
Keep in mind that, according to the blueprint, a substantial portion of this hole (including the green) was under water.
If CBM had not seriously begun the routing and planning process then how could he have told us these details about this particular hole?
If CBM had not already been measuring and mapping the course, how could he tell us that the longest carry would be 240 yards?
Here again is a chance for you to follow the facts, instead of manipulating them. By YOUR logic, these sorts of details and exact distances ought to mean something. Will you accept that, or will you try to explain them away?
-
Here's another early newspaper story to add a bit of colour to the discussion. It's from the Brooklyn Eagle September 28, 1912.
Who knew that 103 years ago that access whoring was already alive. After CBM spent so many years promoting the ideal links in so many newspapers is it any wonder that so many wanted to come and kick the tires and see what all the fuss was about?
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/541/18517138261_074ab96350_h.jpg)
-
Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.
With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?
From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20Right_zpssmooeeqp.jpg)
With respect to the 18th, the first part of the hole is right on the water in the model. Today there is 50 to 70 yards of land between the hole and the Bay. Did the hole get moved inland a bit or was a lot of fill done to move the coastline out or was the model not exact at that level?
Certainly the 1st is a dogleg if you play it out to the right. It looks pretty straight if you take the aggressive line over the left side bunkers. The 18th is less obviously a dogleg unless you play out right off the tee. The picture below shows two lines to play the holes. No doubt Patrick, our resident playing expert, can fill us in on how practical these alternate routes are. The c.1929 drawing certainly shows a straight line from tee to green.
As to the room in the middle, the section where the clubhouse now sits is about 70 yards wide from the left edge of the 18th fairway to the left edge of the left bunkers on the 1st. That's the way it's represented on the model. The middle section is about the same width as the 18th fairway. The 18th fairway today is about 70 yards wide, hence the middle section was about 70 yards across.
For perspective, the clubhouse currently is about 25 yards deep, back to front. That doesn't leave much room on either side of the clubhouse separating it from the possible lines of play on the 1st and 18th. So, yes, there is some room there but it is a snug fit. I doubt very many organizations would build a clubhouse in such a tight space today with all the liability issues. But then, I'm reminded that Cabot Links clubhouse is immediately adjacent too the 18th green, so it is done even today.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18489075966_3f69c48562_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/18284928616_abca3c414c_o.jpg)
-
I think Macdonald was focused on creating the best golf course possible and he simply used the best available landforms to site today's 1st and 18th. To suggest that he made them both dogleg to accommodate a future clubhouse between them is sort of silly, no?
-
Macdonald was nothing if not precise and mathematical. Go back and read his article from Outing Magazine. Read his letter from July 1910 to a club in PA. This was a science to him...go back and read what he wrote about the ideal land and soils being half the battle and the rest being just mathematics, gardening, and experience.
In the Dec 1906 article he's quoted telling us the mathematical dimensions of 200 acres he's secured, 2 miles long by 4 acres wide. Yet, he can't tell us if his first tee is 200 or 300 yards (what's the margin of error in that estimate?) from a known fixed point in the planned site of the Shinnecock Inn?
I would suggest it was because he hadn't placed his first tee yet or calculated where it should be for the type of hole he was going to create there to fit in with the rest that were yet to be determined but knew anything further than 2 or 3 hundred yards to have to walk to and from at the start and finish was anything but ideal.
He just knew by necessity at that juncture that he had to use the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse and thus had to site his starting and finishing holes near there...in the general vicinity...within 200 or 300 yards.
Related, was anyone else surprised as I was to read in that 1908 article i posted yesterday that the Shinnecock Inn was located prior to Macdonald deciding to locate his club and course there? It certainly puts a somewhat different spin on things related to the decision making process.
-
Regarding housing, I don't know if this is relevant or has already been covered, but there was no integrated-housing plan (that I know of). 205 acres were purchased, then the course was routed. (Allowances of land required for clubhouses and maintenance buildings were made; I don't know any specifics.) They needed about 110 acres to accommodate the course and buildings -- the short-term plan post Shinnecock Inn fire to build a "locker house with baths" and a pro shop attached.
The plan in 1906 was to distribute the unneeded land in roughly 1.5-acre parcels to each founder in fee simple. (Founders were to number about 60 and contribute $1,000 each. In return they would receive a debenture.)
A real estate committee was then to be formed. Its job was to decide on the best way to subdivide the unnecessary land and dispose of it to the founders.
As of 1911, though, the excess land had not been divided or parceled. The land remained under control of the club. There was no plan, at least up to then, for housing. There was just (undivided) surplus land.
-
Thanks Mark...greatly appreciate the clarification.
Any idea if there were any restrictions on the Real Estate committee in how they could use surplus land?
-
Sorry Mike I got nothing.
-
Sven, I have been told 18 green moved as a result of the clubhouse, but I am not sure.....
Jeff,
Who told you that the 18th green was moved as a result of the clubhouse ?
-
They needed about 110 acres to accommodate the course and buildings -- the short-term plan post Shinnecock Inn fire to build a "locker house with baths" and a pro shop attached.
The plan in 1906 was to distribute the unneeded land in roughly 1.5-acre parcels to each founder in fee simple. (Founders were to number about 60 and contribute $1,000 each. In return they would receive a debenture.)
A real estate committee was then to be formed. Its job was to decide on the best way to subdivide the unnecessary land and dispose of it to the founders.
Mark:
I'd be interested in seeing any source material on the items above.
Sven
-
Related, was anyone else surprised as I was to read in that 1908 article i posted yesterday that the Shinnecock Inn was located prior to Macdonald deciding to locate his club and course there? It certainly puts a somewhat different spin on things related to the decision making process.
Mike:
The exact quote is that the club had not selected "a habitation" at the time the Inn was built. You have interpreted this to mean the club and course. Another interpretation is they are referring only to a clubhouse, which is what we've been saying all along.
Sven
-
Mark, while I appreciate your input, I'm afraid you'd most recent post might set the thread circling back to the beginning yet again. As Sven suggests, it would be great if you could provide sources for each of the points you mention, so that we can (hopefully) determine what has been covered and what hasn't. Thanks.
-
Mike, The Shinnecock Inn did not open until the 1907 season.
-
Sven,
That's a good point but it also suggests that planning for the Inn, both in terms of location and size, happened independent of Macdonald and his eventual plans to locate his course there and deciding to use that as his clubhouse.
Would you agree that it reads as if they would have made it larger (it was only 30 rooms to accommodate Shinnecock and National members as well as motorists) if they had known Macdonald ' s intent before planning/building?
-
Mike, The Shinnecock Inn did not open until the 1907 season.
Agreed David but it was already planned and was being built when Macdonald was quoted in Dec 1906. Here again Macdonald was talking about accessibility to his course and says the Shinnecock Inn is being built.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7729/18200558210_1ea2695a40_b.jpg)
-
They planned to build an Inn at least. But it is a bit much for you to pretend that CBM would definitely have calculated an exact yardage between his planned 18th green and the planned site for the Inn (if he even knew the exact site.)
Speaking of yardage calculations, if the planning had not yet begun in earnest then how was CBM able to describe the Cape in the detail provided?
-
David,
No question that he found the Cape hole before securing the land as well as the Alps, redan, and Eden. I'm quite sure he had it measured somehow to determine if the direct carry was achievable.
I wish we could have seen the original. Today's hole is great but the original greensite looked to be amazing.
-
So then you acknowledge that they weren't just riding the land to get an idea of the soil and undulations, but rather they were out there measuring key features and placing golf holes?
-
David,
We know by the time he secured the land he had found the sites for the Alps jlhill 15 feet higher than the one at Prestwick, turned and saw an ideal plateau for a redan, and also identified a site for an Eden green that would require an aerial approach over water that he thought an improvement over the original but that took him into a nook of the property he'd have to consider how to get out of. Thus, the Cape was born.
-
Nice job trying to avoid my question Mike. As you just said, you are quite sure he had already measured the carry for the Cape. And this was on a hole that, as depicted on the blueprint, was mostly under water. He was already routing and planning and even measuring the course.
You can't pretend that, just because his "for instance" only included four famous holes, that these are the only holes he had yet considered.
-
8) Resurfacing after a week back at work, I was wondering:
1) Does anyone know when a "stymie gauge," as shown on the NGLA scorecard, was brought into/out of use?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7682/17123962310_6b3b87cc8d_z.jpg)
and whether we perhaps need a modern equivalent for discussion threads?
Never mind, I just found this on golfclubatlas.com... pretty good reading on the site.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgolfclubatlas.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D1326.0%3Bwap2&ei=aGRzVeHmNMjWsAXK34GADw&usg=AFQjCNGYGMOjJcl49cutYZ1_wEjUMlrjnw&sig2=PYIXa0MkFPRwDtNs_Fzqiw&bvm=bv.95039771,d.b2w
2) Does anyone know where CBM & JW rented their ponies from, where were the stables, SE on White's Lane or more to the south? I've seen where CB's later stables were on his 200 acre Ballyshear property. Regardless, the paths and first views into the future NGLA property would or could have first been related to crossing the creek and second to following the unimproved road path(s) leading up the eastern flank on Bull Head Bay and into the property from low ground. First impressions are hard to shake..
It appears there were some very adventurous horses in Suffolk Co. a 100 years ago ;D Gotta love the poetic license in embellishing the diving horse, eh?
(http://www.aaqeastend.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Riverhead-066.jpg)
3) Does anyone have a delineation or measured where the oft quoted SH&PB Realty Co.'s available "450 acres" were on the Sebonak Neck?
Its clear their Olmsted and Vaux survey plat for Shinnecok Hills development didn't include survey of the meadows off of the Cold Spring Pond shoreline, as Redfield had lost his trespass court case against the Aldrich's, though the O&V plat drawing shows some NGLA boundary lines.
Is it possible that SHPB Realty really didn't have clear rights to the S-Neck area at the time of the options/sale to CBM? Was this some classic leverage at play by CBM, perhaps from the survey(s) by Raynor or the other surveyor(s)?
The county records do show later separate sale(s) of property to what became the Sabin Bayberry Land estate. Who was Corrigan, need to check. Per HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY, BAYBERRY LAND (Bayberry Rest Home), HABS No. NY-6388
1. 1916a Sale of property by Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company to Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. 30 October, Liber 938:538. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
2. 1916b Sal of property by Edward J. Corrigan and wife to Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. 15 November, Liber 1001:26. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
3. 1917 Sale of property by Edward J. Corrigan and wife to Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. 10 March, Liber 1001:63. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
4. 1918 Sale of property by Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. to Charles H. Sabin. 19 April, Liber 964:400. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
5. 1920 Sale of property by Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. to Charles H. Sabin 16 February, Liber 991:541. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
6. 1920b Sale of property by Sebonac Neck Land Comapny, Inc. to Charles H. Sabin. 18 May, Liber 1001:74-76. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
7. 1949 Sale of property by Pauline Sabin Davis to E.C.H. Holding Company. 17 December, Liber 3031:558. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
The great division of lands from the 17th - 19th centuries.. note the line from the Reservation up the creek to Bull Head Bay. I wonder what CBM bought his 200 acres for?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/bdce6d71-38e8-4c59-8336-7841abe5ac08_zpsmxrdp77m.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/311ade09-2e01-4be7-915e-6e1bee8aa53f_zpshwdkncfj.png)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/4470ba42-9df8-4581-adad-811db08f9f5d_zpsgmxzpreh.png)
... and along the way I note that one of the pupils of William Merritt Chase's art Colony adopted and developed his realist style... I wonder if CBM & JW found any potential windswept sand dune bunkers like the one pictured below from a 1933 study on their infamous rides at NGLA? Anything in noted in CBM related books to exposed holes in the sand dunes?
I'd bet this would qualify as a little bungalow..
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/annie%20cooper%20boyd%201_zpsnvrnahyl.jpg)
nice to look at, how nature created things out on Long Island
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/9826dd52-8af2-41e2-83b5-12669936ab38_zpsxdljlbm8.jpg)
-
David,
Those were the holes he "found" on his first few trips around the property and the only ones he mentioned. I don't think many of the others were so obvious and required much more detailed study and planning.
I find it very telling that even over 20 years later all he mentions finding are those same four holes.
Steve,
Great stuff, thanks! Any idea what Sabin paid for his purchases?
-
Typical Cirba.
- CBM told us that the location of the first and last holes were located 200-300 yards from the yet to be built Shinnecock Inn, and Mike takes this as strong evidence that CBM hadn't yet begun routing or planning the golf course.
- CBM provided a detailed description (including actual carry distance) of a hole was half underwater at the time and would need to be built (rather than found), and Mike takes this as strong evidence that CBM hadn't yet begun routing or planning the golf course.
To Mike, facts are clay. No matter what the facts, he just molds them to fit his preconceived conclusions.
For those willing to be a bit more sincere with their interpretations, here again is CBM's description of the Cape Hole, much of which (including the green) would need to be built by dredging and filling.
"At the narrow end of Bullshead Bay, where the promontory joins the mainland, is an opportunity for a perfect water hazard to be arranged of varying widths so that a strong driver with a following wind may attempt a 240 yard carry to the green, it will also be possible to take a shorter angle to the fair green and to get home in two . . .."
-
David,
And to you friends are like a bungalow. Where most go for shelter you release your bowels.
-
Steve,.
I am pretty sure that one horse is committing suicide rather than face the horrors of the impenetrable brambles on the Sebonac Neck parcel.
Regarding Sabin's property, I just read recently that he donated 95 acres (his stock farm) for the Southhampton Golf Club in 1925
As for whether or not there were any exposed dunes, from the looks of the 1938 Aerial it sure seems like their could have been. And the Bunker at the Sahara and the bunker at the Leven were both huge early on, and both looked like they could have been there naturally. And in one of the photo from the 1908 article recently posted, it looks like there were some natural bunkers along the bluff on the Peconic. But I couldn't say for certain.
-
8) David,
Sabin was quite a guy. I read that his Landscape Architect, Marian Coffin, had them buy a farm to strip its topsoil for the lawn and gardens at Bayberry Land.. I wonder if that stripped farm was or became the stock farm? Not a lot or organic matter in the soil column on top of the dunes... must have been unsuitable for farming, nearly worthless!
-
8) Resurfacing after a week back at work, I was wondering:
1) Does anyone know when a "stymie gauge," as shown on the NGLA scorecard, was brought into/out of use?
Steve,
I just saw Babe Ruth's score card from a round he played at GCGC in 1938.
On the score card was the "stymie" measure.
Most, if not all, score cards contained the measure until the stymie was eliminated.
I think the stymie was "official" from 1941 to 1952.
Although, versions date back to 1920 and 1938
]
-
Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.
With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?
From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20Right_zpssmooeeqp.jpg)
With respect to the 18th, the first part of the hole is right on the water in the model. Today there is 50 to 70 yards of land between the hole and the Bay. Did the hole get moved inland a bit or was a lot of fill done to move the coastline out or was the model not exact at that level?
Bryan, again, your lack of familarity with the property continues to lead you astray.
One of the reasons that the 18th tee can't be moved across the road provides the answer to your question.
Take a look at Gogle Earth, it should help
Certainly the 1st is a dogleg if you play it out to the right.
It looks pretty straight if you take the aggressive line over the left side bunkers.
Risk - Reward
The line over the bunkers is fraught with danger, but, if pulled off, the approach shot is ideal
A tee shot hit right is safe, but, leaves the golfer with a blind shot into a very, very difficult green.
The 18th is less obviously a dogleg unless you play out right off the tee. The picture below shows two lines to play the holes. No doubt Patrick, our resident playing expert, can fill us in on how practical these alternate routes are. The c.1929 drawing certainly shows a straight line from tee to green.
My dear friend, Terry McBride, an exception player and long time member of NGLA had two rules on the tee when playing # 18.
Rule # 1. Don't hit it in the leftside fairway bunker.
Rule # 2. Go back and read rule # 1.
For the better golfer, hi-tech has somewhat rendered that bunker obsolete.
But, if you go to a makeshift tee back 50 yards, by the gate, even for the long hitters, that bunker comes into play.
The shot of choice is out to the right, which brings you to the center or right side of the fairway.
From their, it's blind up the hill to one of the great skyline greens in golf.
As to the room in the middle, the section where the clubhouse now sits is about 70 yards wide from the left edge of the 18th fairway to the left edge of the left bunkers on the 1st. That's the way it's represented on the model. The middle section is about the same width as the 18th fairway. The 18th fairway today is about 70 yards wide, hence the middle section was about 70 yards across.
For perspective, the clubhouse currently is about 25 yards deep, back to front. That doesn't leave much room on either side of the clubhouse separating it from the possible lines of play on the 1st and 18th. So, yes, there is some room there but it is a snug fit. I doubt very many organizations would build a clubhouse in such a tight space today with all the liability issues. But then, I'm reminded that Cabot Links clubhouse is immediately adjacent too the 18th green, so it is done even today.
Bryan, there's a famous photo of the 18th hole in the clubhouse at NGLA, depicting a golfer playing his 3rd shot from the roof of the clubhouse.
So, the clubhouse is clearly a target for very errant shots
The clubhouse is really far off line from the tee on # 1 and for 2nd shots on # 18, but, it's possible that it can be hit on both holes.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18489075966_3f69c48562_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/18284928616_abca3c414c_o.jpg)
-
Pat,
CBM wrote that you want to be alone with nature right after telling us he first offered the developer $200 per acre for 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal, smack dab in the middle of a planned housing development.
120 acres that would have a golf course, and not homes on it.
Mike, what ever happened to that "planned housing development"
He also wrote the more than 3 blind shots was abhorrent and that 50 yard wide fairways were ideal.
Like many people there was sometimes a gap between what he wrote and said, particularly 20+ years after the fact, and what he did.
I agree, and that's why I know that he always intended the clubhouse to be sited where it currently stands ;D
I'm not the one who came up with the real estate plan, Macdonald did. Whigham called it ingenious in 1906.
Have you played in Scotland and England?
Yes, starting in 1952.
Many of the courses there are in town and many are near housing.
That's because the town and houses were there first.
The town of Southampton was three mile removed and there was no housing in 1906.
-
Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.
With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?
From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20Plaster%20Model%20Right_zpssmooeeqp.jpg)
Sven,
I agree there was land in the middle. It might have been left for a future clubhouse, but I am not convinced it was "unequivocally" intended originally for clubhouse as Pat contends, because:
1. It makes sense that a hole nears the water would hug the bluffs
The 18th hole hugs the water.
2. It makes sense that a hole named valley would be placed in the natural valley.....
So now your theory is that CBM named the holes first, then designed/constructed them ?
3. CBM left a similar amount of wiggle room in many areas
Locate and identify them !
4. If he did intend it to be the clubhouse, he sure didn't do any pre-planning studies, because it wasn't big enough for pro shop, the parking is not exactly adjacent, etc. Not that it had to be done to more modern standards, but it never struck me as being well planned.
Two items.
1 CBM was a member of GCGC.
The GCGC proshop is NOT part of the main clubhouse, but, detached and nearer the first tee.
Almost the identical set up at NGLA.
Coincidence ? Or Planned ? I go with planned.
2 Tell us, how was CBM going to access his clubhouse near the Shinnecock Inn when he had no road leading to that area of the property.
Where was he going to put his parking lot "near" his clubhouse, "near" the Shinnecock Inn
Just take a look next door, at Sebonack.
Would you say that they located their parking lot in the perfect location close to the clubhouse ?
The parking lot at NGLA is located perfectly.
What's more important when designing a golf course, siting your parking lot or siting the holes on your golf course ?
Just my perspective, and of course, I could be wrong. Time may tell.
You, Mike Cirba and others have failed to answer my question.
If the model that Sven posted was crafted prior to April, 1908, isn't that irrefutable evidence that CBM always intended to site his clubhouse at it's current location ?
A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.
Now, let's look at the other factors which you and others have continually ignored.
CBM was thrown out of SHGC.
Would he site his clubhouse underneath the SHGC clubhouse ?
Would he have the SHGC members looking down on him ?
Would he site his brand new clubhouse next to a public/commercial hotel ?
Would he site his clubhouse in an area of the property that had no motor vehicle access.
Or would he site his clubhouse on what he called an "unexcelled site" ?
-
Steve,
... Any idea what Sabin paid for his purchases?
Here's report from Brooklyn Daily Eagle of 3-20-20 of what he paid I believe for the one Feb 1920 land purchase of several used to accumulate the estate's 314 acres. I don't see acres reported in reference, one needs to go to records. Of course he was buying the property from his own company, nice way to keep things under control..
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/966344a1-b41c-4fb5-b582-a661c9f2668c_zpskoy3pq5f.png)
Charlie Sabin could afford it.. talk about connected, look at all the Directorship positions held
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/16c577c4-35db-485c-be5b-952e46804bac_zpspz8xciwh.png)
Reference Directory of Directors 1917-18
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/2fc78d33-e2a4-4937-9002-dd6d5b2919e6_zpsgynh6lfi.png)
-
Bryan, A few comments along the same lines as Patrick's comments.
1. The model shows the 18th right along the edge of a bluff, below which the ground is about at sea level, and is shown on the 1904 Atlas as being almost all water. Today that area is the location of a pond and the practice area, but back then I am not even sure it was considered useable land. [I have seen the model, but I don't recall seeing a date. The earliest publication of a photo of the model (that I've seen) is from early 1914.]
2. The current 18th is still pretty much along the edge of the same bluff, as depicted in on the model.
3. I don't think the "circa 1929" rendering above was actually created in 1929. The map in Scotland's Gift (published 1928 shows two routes, one the direct line, and one the dogleg.
4. All the early depictions of NGLA that I have seen show the 18th as a dogleg, unless a big driver plays directly over the left bunker. In 1909 Whigham described the hole in his discussion of holes utilizing "principle of the 'Dog's Hind Leg:'"
Another splendid example is the 9th [now 18th] hole; 480 yards with a gradual slope uphill all the way. The big driver can carry the bunker in a direct line and by doing so can practically get home in two, or so near home as to have a good chance at four. The poorer driver has to play more to the right, and then is confronted with a big carry for his second if he wants to play straight on the hole. If he is afraid of it he must play his second ball to the left, making his third a long and very difficult approach. The green itself, by the way, standing on a bluff 60 feet above Peconic Bay, rivals Point Garry at North Berwick for picturesqueness.
So Whigham discussed three routes; the direct route, the dogleg route, and the double dogleg route. The first and last are depicted on a sketch included with the article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1909-18th-diagram-Whigham.jpg)
Note the green is tight to the bluff, and described as on the bluff above Peconic Bay.
I guess now we'll argue about whether the double dogleg route played too close to the clubhouse location.
-
Admittedly, I haven't really read the last 25-30 pages of this thread so I apologize if this has been covered or discussed, but I have a simple question or two.
When were the "practice holes" (current driving range) built?
If they weren't built at the same time as the course, is there any evidence that the location and/or idea to build them were pre-determined at the time of construction of the golf course?
-
Sven,
That's a good point but it also suggests that planning for the Inn, both in terms of location and size, happened independent of Macdonald and his eventual plans to locate his course there and deciding to use that as his clubhouse.
Would you agree that it reads as if they would have made it larger (it was only 30 rooms to accommodate Shinnecock and National members as well as motorists) if they had known Macdonald ' s intent before planning/building?
There was another Shinnecock Inn built in the late 1880's near Old Fort Pond. It burned down before SHPBR bought the land. It was SHPBR that decided they needed to build another inn for their recently acquired development, and they decided to also called it the Shinnecock Inn. Building of the Inn was underway by Dec 1, 1906 according to Brooklyn Life.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/353/17929698474_3b2b2a2bdf_c.jpg)
Goddard says the site selection near NGLA by SHPBR was deliberate because they expected NGLA members to contribute to the clientele. No doubt they would have made CBM aware. They wanted to sell him the property and have him become the anchor owner in their new development. No doubt he knew exactly where the Inn would be when he optioned the property.
So, no, I don't think the planning for the Inn happened independently of the Macdonald. The Inn and NGLA were going to be mutually beneficial. I can't see any point in trying to draw any inference from CBM saying 200 - 300 yards.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/448/18552394015_2171c002eb_z.jpg)
-
Mike & Bryan,
Would you admit that if the plaster model Sven posted was crafted pre-April 1908 that it proves, unequivically, that CBM always intended to site his clubhouse in it's current location.
A simple, "YES" or "NO" will suffice.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
I would agree that if the model was built prior to 1906 then CBM was superhuman.
-
Steve,
The purchase I'm most curious about is the one Sabin made in 1917 or 1918 of over 300 acres next to NGLA. It would be interesting to see what he paid per acre. He also bought 20 acres from CBM IN 1920 on land that I believe was west of today's 8th and 9th holes as per an article I posted many pages back.
Also, i know you disagree but why do you think MacDonald wrote that everyone thought the land of Sebonac Neck was more or less worthless?
-
Bryan,
I have the Goddard book and saw that passage but it does seem as if Goddard is speculating and not basing his statement on anything but the circumstantial evidence.
-
Patrick,
No.
You're welcome.
-
Bryan, A few comments along the same lines as Patrick's comments.
1. The model shows the 18th right along the edge of a bluff, below which the ground is about at sea level, and is shown on the 1904 Atlas as being almost all water. Today that area is the location of a pond and the practice area, but back then I am not even sure it was considered useable land. [I have seen the model, but I don't recall seeing a date. The earliest publication of a photo of the model (that I've seen) is from early 1914.]
2. The current 18th is still pretty much along the edge of the same bluff, as depicted in on the model.
3. I don't think the "circa 1929" rendering above was actually created in 1929. The map in Scotland's Gift (published 1928 shows two routes, one the direct line, and one the dogleg.
4. All the early depictions of NGLA that I have seen show the 18th as a dogleg, unless a big driver plays directly over the left bunker. In 1909 Whigham described the hole in his discussion of holes utilizing "principle of the 'Dog's Hind Leg:'"
Another splendid example is the 9th [now 18th] hole; 480 yards with a gradual slope uphill all the way. The big driver can carry the bunker in a direct line and by doing so can practically get home in two, or so near home as to have a good chance at four. The poorer driver has to play more to the right, and then is confronted with a big carry for his second if he wants to play straight on the hole. If he is afraid of it he must play his second ball to the left, making his third a long and very difficult approach. The green itself, by the way, standing on a bluff 60 feet above Peconic Bay, rivals Point Garry at North Berwick for picturesqueness.
So Whigham discussed three routes; the direct route, the dogleg route, and the double dogleg route. The first and last are depicted on a sketch included with the article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1909-18th-diagram-Whigham.jpg)
Note the green is tight to the bluff, and described as on the bluff above Peconic Bay.
I guess now we'll argue about whether the double dogleg route played too close to the clubhouse location.
David,
Nice find on that drawing. I'm not seeing a site for Patrick's proposed clubhouse.
Also, although I'm teasing Patrick wouldn't you agree that from everything we know that plasticene model is likely an as-built from sometime post clubhouse and road construction?
-
Bryan,
I have the Goddard book and saw that passage but it does seem as if Goddard is speculating and not basing his statement on anything but the circumstantial evidence.
Agreed.
How is this different from what we do?
I suspect that Goddard has spent more time and effort doing his research and was thus in a good position to speculate from the evidence - fact based or circumstantial. After all, he wrote the book on the subject. ;)
-
Typical Cirba.
- CBM told us that the location of the first and last holes were located 200-300 yards from the yet to be built Shinnecock Inn, and Mike takes this as strong evidence that CBM hadn't yet begun routing or planning the golf course.
- CBM provided a detailed description (including actual carry distance) of a hole was half underwater at the time and would need to be built (rather than found), and Mike takes this as strong evidence that CBM hadn't yet begun routing or planning the golf course.
To Mike, facts are clay. No matter what the facts, he just molds them to fit his preconceived conclusions.
For those willing to be a bit more sincere with their interpretations, here again is CBM's description of the Cape Hole, much of which (including the green) would need to be built by dredging and filling.
"At the narrow end of Bullshead Bay, where the promontory joins the mainland, is an opportunity for a perfect water hazard to be arranged of varying widths so that a strong driver with a following wind may attempt a 240 yard carry to the green, it will also be possible to take a shorter angle to the fair green and to get home in two . . .."
David,
He didn't mention his finishing hole, only the first tee.
And, if he hadn't yet determined if it was going to be 2 football fields or 3 football fields away from the Inn that was being constructed he probably hadn't routed and determined his first hole yet.
I would think that would have been a pretty fundamental design decision given that he only had 3520 linear yards to work with going out, a need to create a locker house in that space, a desire to create some separation from the Inn (and Shinnecock Hills Golf Club) without creating a tedious walk at the start and end of his round. He wrote quite a bit about the need for intimacy and avoiding long walks. Yeah, he would have known exactly I'm fairly certain. I think it's a very good indicator of how early in the planning process he was because he wouldn't have left any of those things to chance, much less a 50% margin of error.
-
Bryan, A few comments along the same lines as Patrick's comments.
1. The model shows the 18th right along the edge of a bluff, below which the ground is about at sea level, and is shown on the 1904 Atlas as being almost all water. Today that area is the location of a pond and the practice area, but back then I am not even sure it was considered useable land. [I have seen the model, but I don't recall seeing a date. The earliest publication of a photo of the model (that I've seen) is from early 1914.]
I agree that the model and the Whigham drawing both show the 18th hole hugging the rising bluff and directly adjacent to the water. The 17th green is also depicted as almost on the water.
I believe the 1904 topo shows that area as swamp, but it shows there was some land/swamp to the north of the 17th green and 18th hole.
The current aerial (below) shows that there is now a pond and land there, including the practice area.
The 1938 aerial shows that the pond and land were there then.
Seems likely to me that the pond was dredged and the tailings used to build up some of the surrounding area at some point unknown to me. Probably not enough to build up the current practice area.
The last picture below from the end of Sebonac Inlet Rd shows that area looking up to the flagpole.
What I draw from all this is that there was some land there to the right of the 18th fairway from the beginning and that therefore the model does not accurately depict the 18th hole as hugging the bluff and water its whole length.
2. The current 18th is still pretty much along the edge of the same bluff, as depicted in on the model.
Pretty much, although the bluff is not adjacent to the water in the first two thirds of the hole as depicted in the model. The right edge of the fairway is also about 50 yards from the beach, although I guess some part of that is the slope of the bluff.
3. I don't think the "circa 1929" rendering above was actually created in 1929. The map in Scotland's Gift (published 1928 shows two routes, one the direct line, and one the dogleg.
OK re 1929. Curiously my version of Scotland's Gift doesn't appear to have that map. Could you post it.
4. All the early depictions of NGLA that I have seen show the 18th as a dogleg, unless a big driver plays directly over the left bunker. In 1909 Whigham described the hole in his discussion of holes utilizing "principle of the 'Dog's Hind Leg:'"
Another splendid example is the 9th [now 18th] hole; 480 yards with a gradual slope uphill all the way. The big driver can carry the bunker in a direct line and by doing so can practically get home in two, or so near home as to have a good chance at four. The poorer driver has to play more to the right, and then is confronted with a big carry for his second if he wants to play straight on the hole. If he is afraid of it he must play his second ball to the left, making his third a long and very difficult approach. The green itself, by the way, standing on a bluff 60 feet above Peconic Bay, rivals Point Garry at North Berwick for picturesqueness.
I'd have to agree with Whigham about the view from Point Garry.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8664/15312925323_53183c5208_c.jpg)
So Whigham discussed three routes; the direct route, the dogleg route, and the double dogleg route. The first and last are depicted on a sketch included with the article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1909-18th-diagram-Whigham.jpg)
Note the green is tight to the bluff, and described as on the bluff above Peconic Bay.
Yes, I agree that the green is on the bluff.
I guess now we'll argue about whether the double dogleg route played too close to the clubhouse location.
I didn't realize that you and I were arguing about the clubhouse location. I would observe that Whigham's drawing depicts rough in a straight line down the left side. There is no indication of an always intended clubhouse there. ;) Maybe Whigham hadn't gotten the memo yet.
Even Pat agrees that the clubhouse can be in play on the 18th. One might even surmise that that means it is too close to the fairway for the double dogleg version of playing the hole.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18489075966_3f69c48562_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8841/18567177165_27a1180da5_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/263/18368391032_0384e6f7a7_c.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8881/18562689032_42f5c0a4e3_c.jpg)
-
Steve,
The purchase I'm most curious about is the one Sabin made in 1917 or 1918 of over 300 acres next to NGLA. It would be interesting to see what he paid per acre. He also bought 20 acres from CBM IN 1920 on land that I believe was west of today's 8th and 9th holes as per an article I posted many pages back.
Also, i know you disagree but why do you think MacDonald wrote that everyone thought the land of Sebonac Neck was more or less worthless?
Mike,
I don't believe Bayberry Land was purchased in "one" deal from SH&PB Realty Co, there were many land transfers related to the property reported in the HABS document.
My inclination is to believe that Sabin and Macdonald both saw opportunity in them thar hills... and early in the overall timeline of things you've been trying to reconcile. If I had my sights on such land, I wouldn't give it much "public value" for discussion or reference!
- Certainly they both travelled to Shinnecock Hills by train to play and stay, perhaps also an adventure by car, who knows? Its not as though they kept handwritten journals of everything they did, maybe their secretaries kept a datebook or schedule that's discoverable, who knows?. I simply imagine they must have done more than play and leave the area, they were too well connected.
- I imagine seeing some of the estates etc. already there or in development gave them some ideas, it was a very nice place compared to Wall Street & Broadway offices, and city living, a place to play golf, relax, recharge, and breath the fresh air. With the new bridges, tunnels and transportation options leading out to Long Island, it was an easy to recognize opportunity to get in early. Perhaps if that competing rail line built directly along the Connecticut shore up to Boston hadn't been built, the LIRR might had been able to earlier commercialize their rail-ferry-rail route to Boston, things would have been bit different.
- I imagine they must have discussed their interests or dreams at some time, how to best secure some future land holdings, non-competively or with a win-win team approach of course, just like on Wall Street!
- CBM ended up with 200 acres for himself, Ballyshear Estate, CHS ended up with his 314 acre Bayberry Land estate. These were not men thinking cabanas or bungalows for their situations in life.
- I read where bicycling was a grand adventure and was a well promoted recreational activity out on the Long island shoreline, but I don't see CBM & CHS on bikes.. Given their ages and upbringings, I see CBM taking some horse rides for fun or adventure up to Sag Harbor or Sebonac Creek or to Sebanac Neck, off to the hills along the rail line, around Cold Spring Pond and checking out Bull Head Bay waters edge and the view from the bluffs over Peconic Bay. CBM later had his own stables at Ballyshear, and if you like to ride or grew up on a horse, that must have been a tremendously fun area to explore. I've ridden in the sandy hills of northern Michigan, a horse is a great way to traverse some major mileage on small paths or to make your own.. ((My wife, Ms.Sheila, had a pony and I've heard tales of her riding all day with her friends, 10's of miles, a free range kid so to speak)) CBM surely was adventurous and could have checked things out on his own, or quietly with others, even camped out on the beach, who knows? You know, if you make a trail in spring, and keep traveling it, it stays most of the summer with little upkeep, like deer trails..
- Given how real estate sales by Parrish's passive Shinnecock Hills Land Co. were superceded by Redfield's aggressive SH&PB Realty Co. who had Olmsted and Vaux plat things extensively from the Canal Place to Southampton , and the ensuing lack of sales were keenly watched and reported in newspapers like the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, it was probably a gambit of "right of first refusal" or land option plays that enabled Sabin to have his Sebonac Neck Land Co quietly acquire the properties over time that became Bayberry Land, while CBM didn't have to deal with Redfield for his Ballyshear property.
That's what I think and imagine. for now...
-
8) Here's a view of the Peconic Bay bluff at Bayberry Land which should help one understand the nature and character of slopes and distances to water from the bluff's edge there near NGLA's 18th green, which would be located left of the photo
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/Sabin-Aerial_zpsn53rymnp.jpg)
-
Another time period colour piece to do with the road developments and SHPBR. This one from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on September 2, 1911.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/490/17949166094_39eeabeca5_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I would agree that if the model was built prior to 1906 then CBM was superhuman.
Mike,
This is where you cross the line into intellectual dishonesty.
I was specific in citing the date as April, 1908.
Why did you deliberately avoid answering the question honestly ?
-
Patrick,
No.
You're welcome.
Bryan,
Yes, thank you for showing us that facts don't matter to you, that you too are intellectually dishonest and that you can't admit if you've made a mistake.
If Macdonald crafted that model prior to April, 1908, then it's incontrovertible, irrefutable that he always intended his clubhouse to reside on its current site.
-
Bryan, A few comments along the same lines as Patrick's comments.
1. The model shows the 18th right along the edge of a bluff, below which the ground is about at sea level, and is shown on the 1904 Atlas as being almost all water. Today that area is the location of a pond and the practice area, but back then I am not even sure it was considered useable land. [I have seen the model, but I don't recall seeing a date. The earliest publication of a photo of the model (that I've seen) is from early 1914.]
2. The current 18th is still pretty much along the edge of the same bluff, as depicted in on the model.
3. I don't think the "circa 1929" rendering above was actually created in 1929. The map in Scotland's Gift (published 1928 shows two routes, one the direct line, and one the dogleg.
4. All the early depictions of NGLA that I have seen show the 18th as a dogleg, unless a big driver plays directly over the left bunker. In 1909 Whigham described the hole in his discussion of holes utilizing "principle of the 'Dog's Hind Leg:'"
Another splendid example is the 9th [now 18th] hole; 480 yards with a gradual slope uphill all the way. The big driver can carry the bunker in a direct line and by doing so can practically get home in two, or so near home as to have a good chance at four. The poorer driver has to play more to the right, and then is confronted with a big carry for his second if he wants to play straight on the hole. If he is afraid of it he must play his second ball to the left, making his third a long and very difficult approach. The green itself, by the way, standing on a bluff 60 feet above Peconic Bay, rivals Point Garry at North Berwick for picturesqueness.
So Whigham discussed three routes; the direct route, the dogleg route, and the double dogleg route. The first and last are depicted on a sketch included with the article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1909-18th-diagram-Whigham.jpg)
Note the green is tight to the bluff, and described as on the bluff above Peconic Bay.
I guess now we'll argue about whether the double dogleg route played too close to the clubhouse location.
David,
Nice find on that drawing. I'm not seeing a site for Patrick's proposed clubhouse.
That's because you don't understand how far the rough extends to the left
Also, although I'm teasing Patrick wouldn't you agree that from everything we know that plasticene model is likely an as-built from sometime post clubhouse and road construction?
No, because the entrance is still from the extension of White's Lane and not from Sebonack Inlet Rd
-
How many times do you think CBM had played golf at Shinnecock before NGLA was built?
A hundred?
-
8) Did White's Lane name come from this guy living on north side of Southampton? Post-Civil War era?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/e4e5c8fb-68e2-40f4-a83f-9bdb376b9f3f_zpsg4vvo0bz.png)
A pretty old historical map showing a "Capt. E White's" location, arrow added. (? same or related or mislabelled homestead?)
Notes: Its generally correct location of CBM's Ballyshear property (address was 117 Whites Lane) south of Bull Head Bay; looks like Tuckahoe is placed perhaps too nearby; Cold Spring Pond is named Hills Pond (note wetlands on its north flank.
Atlas maps generally provide path of how to get somewhere, not perfectly proportioned geographical depictions. Note wetlands on north east triangle corner of Sebonac Neck
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/3b6d3c51-5250-4e03-b7b1-cfbbd933605d_zps26a38jrx.png)
-
The Evening Post - May 7, 1910
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/NGLA%20-%20The%20Evening%20Post%20May%207%201910_zpsvzru8alp.png)
-
8) Looks like they were still using the SHGC's clubhouse in 1910 (corrected)...
Sven can you make that clip larger, a little easier to read for folks?
-
Steve:
Made it larger. Think you meant 1910.
Sven
-
David,
He didn't mention his finishing hole, only the first tee.
And, if he hadn't yet determined if it was going to be 2 football fields or 3 football fields away from the Inn that was being constructed he probably hadn't routed and determined his first hole yet.
I would think that would have been a pretty fundamental design decision given that he only had 3520 linear yards to work with going out, a need to create a locker house in that space, a desire to create some separation from the Inn (and Shinnecock Hills Golf Club) without creating a tedious walk at the start and end of his round. He wrote quite a bit about the need for intimacy and avoiding long walks. Yeah, he would have known exactly I'm fairly certain. I think it's a very good indicator of how early in the planning process he was because he wouldn't have left any of those things to chance, much less a 50% margin of error.
Another great example of why trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is so challenging.
1. Where, pray tell, do you think the finishing hole would have been, if not near the starting hole and temporary clubhouse?
2. Your reading of CBM's "200-300 yards" comment has to be a joke. Why would he have taken an exact measure of the distance between the first tee and the Shinnecock Inn? What in the hell does that have to do with the golf course? What does it matter if it is 230 yards or 270 yards walk from the clubhouse to the first tee?
A more reasonable interpretation is that CBM had at least an idea of where he would locate his first tee, but that he had not bothered to measure the exact distance to the Inn because the exact distance really made no difference other than that is was convenient, and in his mind 200-300 yards was convenient.
3. You seem to be intentionally avoiding my point regarding the Cape hole. As his description of the Cape hole evidences, CBM was out there planning and measuring, but on the golf course, not at the Inn.
-
Hi Bryan,
. . . although the bluff is not adjacent to the water in the first two thirds of the hole as depicted in the model. The right edge of the fairway is also about 50 yards from the beach, although I guess some part of that is the slope of the bluff.
It looks to me like CBM treated the edge of the bluff as the coastline. This wasn't where the water met the beach, but it looks to me like CBM treated this as the end of the land, and I think the relief map and other early maps reflect this. From a design perspective, I think this meant that the edge of the bluff defined the edge of his golf hole.
Curiously my version of Scotland's Gift doesn't appear to have that map. Could you post it.
The map is a fold out and is about three pages. I haven't been able to get a clean scan on my little machine, and I don't want to break my book. If I get a chance I'll have it scanned on a bigger machine, but I am not sure when that will happen. I think the shape of the holes is essentially what the circa 1929 map shows, but the marked playing lines are different.
I'd have to agree with Whigham about the view from Point Garry.
I thought you might appreciate that. The image of NB might be telling though, as it looks like there is quite a lot of land between the golf hole and the ocean (at least at low tide). I think CBM viewed may have viewed the land north of the 17th green and 18th fairway at NGLA similarly.
I didn't realize that you and I were arguing about the clubhouse location.
You and I aren't, I meant "we" more generally.
-
Steve, I think that was the same guy. I have read somewhere that CBM bought most of his land from Capt. White and/or his estate.
-
I'm going to try to ask again. I apologize if I'm getting in the way of arguing parties here.
Is there any documentation or knowledge of when the practice area with template greens (current driving range) were both conceived by CBM and actually built? Were they built at the same time as the golf course? If not, is their any documentation suggesting the practice area with template greens were part of the plan at the time the course started construction?
Thank you to anyone that tries to answer my question.
-
Jeff,
I haven't seen anything that would date the template greens practice area. Maybe others have. It's clear from the current debates that they weren't on the plaster model, so perhaps they were conceived after that, or perhaps they were conceived, but weren't considered important enough to put on the model. Not much help, I guess.
-
Patrick,
On this page you have accused Mike and I of "intellectual dishonesty" over different things. I suggest you and the others on this thread read the following article on "Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty" at this web site:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/ (https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/)
I found it thought provoking in the context of our collective sometimes rancorous arguments on here. No doubt we all fail some of the ten signs from time to time - in my opinion you fail more of them, more of the time. So, at the very least you are the kettle calling the pot black.
As for latest attack on my intellectual honesty - I don't see what you see in the model. If you say you see a clubhouse in that green blob in a figure eight you have every right to state that. I don't see it as a clubhouse. That's my honest opinion after analyzing the picture of the model and considering your belief.
One sign of intellectual honesty is to "Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist." I acknowledge that you have an alternative viewpoint - I'm not real sure about the reasonableness of it, but you're entitled to it. Have you ever publicly acknowledged anyone else's viewpoint as reasonable when you didn't agree with it. Or, do you always resort to ad hominem attacks?
Enough navel gazing, now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18489075966_3f69c48562_z.jpg)
-
Jeff,
I haven't seen anything that would date the template greens practice area. Maybe others have. It's clear from the current debates that they weren't on the plaster model, so perhaps they were conceived after that, or perhaps they were conceived, but weren't considered important enough to put on the model. Not much help, I guess.
The model puts the entire practice area under water it appears to me. It kind of looks like the model doesn't really care about the area that the golf course isn't on, which is understandable. I think if someone can show that the practice area's conception was dated at the time of construction, it would certainly support the idea that the current clubhouse and first tee are where they were intended to be from the beginning. Admittedly, it would be no smoking gun, but I'll say this...
If you were to tell me that the concept and intent to build a practice area in its current location existed at the time of course construction, you'd have a hard time trying to convince me that the current 1st tee and clubhouse aren't where they were always intended to be.
I have no beef in this argument, just a thought.
-
Jeff,
The practice area came decades later. There was no practice area built originally. Hope that helps.
-
Mike, What facts support your matter-of-fact statement that the practice area was not built until decades later?
Jeff, I don't recal seeing any mention of the practice area I. The early reports, and there is no mention of it in CBM's Jan 1912 statement to the Founders.
__________________________________________
Bryan I don't remember the details from the model, but looking at it now I think that the circular drive area is a depiction of the clubhouse.
-
Steve,
From what I've been able to determine Sabin acquired over 400 acres between October 1916 to March 1917 through his Sebonac Neck Land Company, which was then transferred directly to his name a few years later for a "nominal fee" Still no luck on finding what he was paying per acre from the Real Estate Developer.
Sven,
I've thought about Macdonald playing at Shinnecock too, but also wondered what might possibly take him north into a bramble-covered swampy, undeveloped land prior? I think of many courses I've played often but never felt compelled to wander or investigate adjacent lands. It's a bit ironic to think in hindsight that although his search took him over much of the northeast Atlantic coastline, the answer was sort of lying right under his nose all along.
-
Thanks for addressing my question guys. I'm not trying to get in the middle of the discussion. It seemed like a stab in the dark. I felt that if there was any documented intent to have the current range area used for any type of "practice" at the time of construction, then it would potentially support the argument that the current routing and clubhouse placement were intended at the time of construction.
-
3. You seem to be intentionally avoiding my point regarding the Cape hole. As his description of the Cape hole evidences, CBM was out there planning and measuring, but on the golf course, not at the Inn.
David,
I'm not sure if by December 1906 Macdonald was measuring, or eyeball estimating, or had a scale map of Sebonac Neck but even so his claim of 240 yards to reach the green directly seems a bit off, or perhaps was changed later in the design process. Here's more info regarding original carries from a 1909 Harper's Weekly article as well as some pictures;
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/396/18599753052_ae0e9aa39b_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/533/18577924746_deb643df45_b.jpg)
-
Steve,
From what I've been able to determine Sabin acquired over 400 acres between October 1916 to March 1917 through his Sebonac Neck Land Company, which was then transferred directly to his name a few years later for a "nominal fee" Still no luck on finding what he was paying per acre from the Real Estate Developer.
Mike, Have you seen or pulled the county records from the SH&PB Realty Co and Corrigan sales to SNLC which were documented in the HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY, BAYBERRY LAND (Bayberry Rest Home), HABS No. NY-6388?
1. 1916a Sale of property by Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company to Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. 30 October, Liber 938:538. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
2. 1916b Sal of property by Edward J. Corrigan and wife to Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. 15 November, Liber 1001:26. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
3. 1917 Sale of property by Edward J. Corrigan and wife to Sebonac Neck Land Company, Inc. 10 March, Liber 1001:63. Suffolk County Deed Records, Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, Riverhead, NY.
Do they add up to > 400 acres?
I have found some EJ Corrigan related references, but nothing related to land transfer.
-
Steve,
Yes, the HABS document is where I found the reference to Sabin having purchased over 400 acres between October 1916 and March 1917.
I've not seen or pulled the County records associated with those sales but remain interested to see how the adjacent land appreciated in the time after NGLA was built.
-
As usual, Mike is twisting and spinning the facts in order to make whatever point he happens to be making at the time. A few days ago, of the Cape home Mike said that he was "quite sure [CBM] had it measured somehow to determine if the direct carry was achievable." Now that I've pointed out to Mike where that logic leads him, he backtracks once again and suggests that CBM didn't have the correct measure after all.
In the 1909 Scribner's article, Whigham indicated the direct measure to the flag is 290 yards, but contemplates that while a long drive of at least 240 yards "almost straight for the hole" wouldn't reach the green, it "may get within putting distance and have a good chance at a three."
_______________________________________
Mike, how about my first two questions?
1. Where do you think the finishing hole would have been, if not near the starting hole and Shinnecock Inn?
2. Why would he have taken an exact measure of the distance between the first tee and the Shinnecock Inn? What does that exact distance have to do with the golf course? What does it matter if it is 230 yards or 270 yards walk from the Inn to the first tee?
____________________________________________
Mike and Steve, not all of Sabin's holdings were on or immediately adjacent to Sebonack Neck. For example, I mentioned above that he had 95 acres on Tuckahoe that eventually donated to Southampton Golf Club.
-
Thanks for addressing my question guys. I'm not trying to get in the middle of the discussion. It seemed like a stab in the dark. I felt that if there was any documented intent to have the current range area used for any type of "practice" at the time of construction, then it would potentially support the argument that the current routing and clubhouse placement were intended at the time of construction.
Sounds like a reasonable stab in the dark to me. We'll see if anyone can date the creation of the practice area.
I would only add that the practice area doesn't appear to be on the blueprint either.
In the meantime I'll stick with Macdonald's own words from Scotland's Gift that his original intention was to have it on a site "near the old Shinnecock Inn". If evidence comes forward that what he wrote in Scotland's Gift is wrong then I'll change my opinion of what CBM's original intention was. Following is the pertinent section from Scotland's Gift (with my added parenthetical comments and highlighting for clarity) and he used the word "intended" often enough to convince me that that was what he thought his intentions were.
"We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. Immediately we commenced development. In many places the land was impoverished. These had to be top dressed. Roughly speaking, I think we have probably put some 10,000 loads of good soil, including manure, on the property. We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty Company. The old saying, “Ill blows the wind that profits nobody,” is quite apropos here, for the Inn burned down in 1909, which drove us to building a club-house.
We abandoned the (club-house) site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay; so our first hole now is what was intended to be the tenth, and our eighteenth hole is what was intended to be the ninth. This proved most fortunate, for to-day we have an unexcelled site. There are no more beautiful golfing vistas in the world than those from the National Golf Club, unless it be those from the Mid-Ocean Club in Bermuda."
MacDonald, Charles (2014-05-01). Scotland's Gift: How America Discovered Golf (Kindle Locations 2311-2319). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition.
-
8) David,
Yes. I do realize that, as I followed your lead and had found there is a Corrigan Lane east and parallel to Tuckahoe Ln... I assume linked to the subject farmland later provided to SGC and used for strippingg topsoil for Bayberry Land.. (well on further inspection, maybe not right on / off Corrigan Ln. but maybe other close related farmland...). In any case, land outside of the SH&PB Realty Co holdings.
So it looks like HABS referenced 1916a sale may have been the main one for Bayberry Land, and THE HABS Report may have mis-included the Corrigan properties without double checking the parcel locations. Figure that..
-
As usual, Mike is twisting and spinning the facts in order to make whatever point he happens to be making at the time. A few days ago, of the Cape home Mike said that he was "quite sure [CBM] had it measured somehow to determine if the direct carry was achievable." Now that I've pointed out to Mike where that logic leads him, he backtracks once again and suggests that CBM didn't have the correct measure after all.
In the 1909 Scribner's article, Whigham indicated the direct measure to the flag is 290 yards, but contemplates that while a long drive of at least 240 yards "almost straight for the hole" wouldn't reach the green, it "may get within putting distance and have a good chance at a three."
_______________________________________
Mike, how about my first two questions?
1. Where do you think the finishing hole would have been, if not near the starting hole and Shinnecock Inn?
2. Why would he have taken an exact measure of the distance between the first tee and the Shinnecock Inn? What does that exact distance have to do with the golf course? What does it matter if it is 230 yards or 270 yards walk from the Inn to the first tee?
________________________________________
David,
When you asked me the question about how he came up with 240 yards direct carry to the green I answered that he must have measured it. You are the one who jumped to the conclusion that he must have been out there surveying the property already.
After doing a bit more re-reading about the original Cape hole, I'm not sure how he came to that number unless he changed the location of the tee or green over time. Knowing where the tee is located I don't think the tee moved.
So, he either surveyed it, had a scale map of Sebonac Neck, or he eyeballed it, or moved the greensite because the 1909 articles we both sited have the carry at least 40-50 yards further. Further, the original green was surrounded by water on 3 sides, thus, the Cape hole.
As for your other questions, of course CBM told us he needed his starting and finishing holes near the Shinnecock Inn but his statement in question quoted in Dec 1906 only mentioned the first tee and the 200 to 300 yards distance from the Shinnecock Inn. No indication how close or far his finishing hole would be to the Inn.
The other question as to why he would is self-evident. If he'd already located a first tee he would have known exactly how far it was for his members to walk from the new building. He provided a guesstimate of about where he'd locate it for all of the reasons I previously mentioned.
**ADDED** Re-reading Bryan's post above regarding Macdonald's "intentions", I have little doubt that Macdonald would have known the exact distance from the "Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built..." when he sited his first tee. He was a very precise man in his descriptions. Although planned and under construction, the Inn wasn't built until the spring of 1907, opening that summer.
-
Mike,
Re Macdonald's mathematical precision, what do you make of this quote about the 10,000 loads of good soil. He put three caveats on that number - "Roughly", "I think" and "probably". Perhaps he wasn't quite so mathematically precise as you thought. I think the 200 -300 yards was just an estimate because he didn't remember the precise number or he never measured a precise distance because it really wasn't relevant.
We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. Immediately we commenced development. In many places the land was impoverished. These had to be top dressed. Roughly speaking, I think we have probably put some 10,000 loads of good soil, including manure, on the property. We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty Company. The old saying, “Ill blows the wind that profits nobody,” is quite apropos here, for the Inn burned down in 1909, which drove us to building a club-house.
MacDonald, Charles (2014-05-01). Scotland's Gift: How America Discovered Golf (Kindle Locations 2311-2319). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition.
_____________________________________
David,
How do you suppose he measured the cape hole to know it was a 240 yard carry? It was as you say, largely either swampy or under water. Would he have surveyed it to get the distance (since it couldn't be paced off), and if so when? Or, was the 240 yards initially in his mind a distance that he would want to design the hole to be. He could, after all, build the green at any distance he wanted since it was going to be concrete walls and fill.
-
Bryan,
Good question, but the total number of loads of soil wasn't relevant to his mathematical calculations that were a large part of defining his Ideal Course. Further, it sounds as though a lot of that need for "fill" was unplanned, or happened over time such as the need to rebuild the original Cape green because it would sink at high-tide or during storms so he likely never kept a running total. Fill was cheap and available near that green by dredging.
I also find it interesting that Macdonald says his intention was to locate his first hole near the Shinnecock Inn "which had recently been built". Although it was underway by December 1906, construction of that building wasn't completed until the spring of 1907, opening for the summer trade.
-
Related to Macdonald ' s Dec 1906 quote, he specifically states that the 240 yard carry was "to the green", not to leave an easy pitch as Whigham described later.
Again, I think all of these various items simply show how early CBM was in the design process at that time.
-
When you asked me the question about how he came up with 240 yards direct carry to the green I answered that he must have measured it. You are the one who jumped to the conclusion that he must have been out there surveying the property already.
I did NOT jump to any conclusions regarding if or when he "surveyed the property." Quit putting words in my mouth.
So, he either surveyed it, had a scale map of Sebonac Neck, or he eyeballed it, or moved the greensite because the 1909 articles we both sited have the carry at least 40-50 yards further. Further, the original green was surrounded by water on 3 sides, thus, the Cape hole.
Or he never meant a direct 240 yard carry onto the cape green, which would have been next to impossible with the equipment of the day.
The other question as to why he would is self-evident. If he'd already located a first tee he would have known exactly how far it was for his members to walk from the new building. He provided a guesstimate of about where he'd locate it for all of the reasons I previously mentioned.
Self-evident? It is self-evident that he would have exactly measured the distance between the Shinnecock Inn and his golf course? It is self evident that he would have exactly measured a walk which was irrelevant to his golf course? No. It is NOT self-evident.
Again, Mike, why would he have exactly measured the distance between the Shinnecock Inn and the first tee?
In answering, pretend I am an idiot, and I just can't understand why this is "self-evident" that he would have bothered to exactly measure the walk to the first tee. Because I don't think it is "self-evident."
He was a very precise man in his descriptions.
I love how, with regard to irrelevancies like this, you view him as a very precise man in his descriptions when it suits you, but then he precisely describes important details, you change what he says to suit your purposes.
-
David,
How do you suppose he measured the cape hole to know it was a 240 yard carry? It was as you say, largely either swampy or under water. Would he have surveyed it to get the distance (since it couldn't be paced off), and if so when? Or, was the 240 yards initially in his mind a distance that he would want to design the hole to be. He could, after all, build the green at any distance he wanted since it was going to be concrete walls and fill.
I don't know how he measured it. Could have been off a map. Could have been that he had a surveyor out there with him. Could have been that he planned to make it 240 no matter what the measure, because that was the distance they used for a really superior drive.
I don't think he was ever talking about a direct 240 carry to the green, because that would have been beyond the capabilities of the equipment of the time for even the largest hitters.
My point is that the Cape was planned, not found.
-
I don't know how he measured it. Could have been off a map. Could have been that he had a surveyor out there with him. Could have been that he planned to make it 240 no matter what the measure, because that was the distance they used for a really superior drive.
I don't think he was ever talking about a direct 240 carry to the green, because that would have been beyond the capabilities of the equipment of the time for even the largest hitters.
My point is that the Cape was planned, not found.
David,
I'm not sure if I follow your logic here. Why would a 240 yard carry to fairway be reasonable but a 240 yard carry to the green not be?
Here's what CBM said in December 1906.
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/295/18611725261_6ac02e7322_b.jpg)
Also, I'm curious to know why you think the Cape was planned in advance? I'm not familiar with CBM ever discussing this type of hole prior and it seems to me to have been wonderful happenstance after he located a site with a water carry for an Eden green and then looked for how he could get out of that nook for a next hole if he used that Eden greensite.
Here's what he wrote in "Scotland's Gift";
"We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered
a place where we could put the Eden hole which would not permit
a topped ball to run up on the green. Then we found a wonderful
water-hole, now the Cape."
I think the hole was found, not planned. At least that's my reading of what he wrote.
-
David,
As regards the 1st tee distance from the Shinnecock Inn, I think we know there were some important considerations for CBM.
He didn't own the Inn so along with housing his membership, at least for the first few years as he envisioned, there would be members of Shinnecock, passing motorists, etc., lodging there so I'm sure he wanted to be close, but not too close. In fact ,it was such an important consideration that he wrote about it over 20 years later, "...our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn which had recently been built..."
Further, he had plans to build a locker house between the Shinnecock Inn and his first tee, so he would have needed to leave room for that structure.
And, if he hadn't yet determined by December 1906 if his first tee was going to be 2 football fields or 3 football fields away from the Inn that was being constructed he probably hadn't routed and determined his first hole yet.
I would think that would have been a pretty fundamental design decision given that he only had 3520 linear yards to work with going out, a need to create a locker house in that space, a desire to create some separation from the Inn (and Shinnecock Hills Golf Club) without creating a tedious walk at the start and end of his round. He wrote quite a bit about the need for intimacy and avoiding long walks. I think it's a very good indicator of how early in the planning process he was because he wouldn't have left any of those things to chance, much less a 50% margin of error.
You mentioned your belief that he located his greensites first and in concept I agree with you but don't think it was a hard and fast rule. But if he had, wouldn't a potential 100 yard difference on a par four be a major difference in the type of starting hole he would have?
Here's an artist's concept of the Shinnecock Inn provided prior by Brian. Clearly, it was a fixed point and was already under construction by December 1906.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/353/17929698474_3b2b2a2bdf_c.jpg)
-
This August 6th, 1910 article from the NY Evening Post is the first I read regarding moving the clubhouse to the bluff above the Peconic Bay.
It also may help us date some things to consider how much or how little bunkering had been done at any point in time. Numerous stories around construction and Opening of the course talked about how the bunkering was minimal, mostly dictated to date by the definitions of the holes that were being reproduced and that additional bunkering would be added after the course was in play through careful study.
I'm not sure what that model reflects in terms of overall bunkering. I'd also be curious to see comparisons of the bunkering drawn in that August 1907 map versus what exists in the blueprint and the model, but that would take eyes much younger than mine.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8872/18615641281_ee644b8c23_z.jpg)
-
From Mike Cirba:
And, if he hadn't yet determined by December 1906 if his first tee was going to be 2 football fields or 3 football fields away from the Inn that was being constructed he probably hadn't routed and determined his first hole yet.
Mike, even those of us who are just casually reading along can recognize a pile of crap when we see it, no matter how many paragraphs and photos you try to place around it.
You have a theory in search of facts. Don't you realize what a fool you are making of yourself?
-
Bill,
I'm sorry you feel that way and I honestly don't know what "theory" you're talking about. The only thing I'm trying to do here is help to reconstruct the timeline of events around the design and creation of NGLA from contemporaneous news reports and recollections of others include Macdonald.
The Shinnecock Inn, originally known as the Sebonac Inn, began construction sometime prior to December 1, 1906 on a high hilltop overlooking the lovely surrounds. The construction effort was reported as favored by an "open winter" during January of 1907 and opened early May of that year.
-
Mike, I think Bill has it exactly right.
Further, despite paragraph after paragraph of spinning, you still haven't answered my question.
Why would CBM have exactly measured the distance between the Shinnecock Inn and the first tee?
Don't give me the same old nonsense. Tell me why CBM would have exactly measured (as opposed to roughly estimated) that particular distance.
If I said my house is two or three hundred yards from the 14th tee at Rancho Park Golf Course, then you would have to be an idiot to take this to mean that either my house or the golf course had not yet been planned/constructed.
-
I'm not sure if I follow your logic here. Why would a 240 yard carry to fairway be reasonable but a 240 yard carry to the green not be?
I don't think he could/would have possibly meant that there would be a carry over 240 yards of water, because such a water carry would have been beyond the capabilities of top players and equipment at the time. I think he meant basically what Whigham wrote in 1909, which was that for a golfer playing almost directly at the hole, it took a great drive to get close enough to putt and at least a 240 yard drive to give the golfer a good chance at at three.
I base this on the fact that they repeatedly used the 240-250 yard figure as their benchmark for exceptional drives, but his included carry and roll. For example in Whigham's description of the Sahara, 250 yards, he notes that the most dangerous drive was directly at the hole needed a carry of 180 yards, and such a drive (which was sharply downhill at the end) might reach the green or the edge of the green. Likewise, he depicted the longest drives on the Leven and Home as 240 yards.
Also, I'm curious to know why you think the Cape was planned in advance?
This isn't what I wrote. I don't think it was planned in advance. I think it was planned when CBM found the spot, while he was earnestly studying the contours and placing the holes he wanted create. My point is that the hole itself wasn't there when CBM described it. According to the blueprint the green wasn't even on dry land. This (and the fact that he had already knew the carry would work) suggest that he had already been earnestly studying the contours, placing his holes, and planning the course.
-
David Moriarty,
If you look at the 1938 aerial I think you'll be able to make out target practice greens and multiple practice tees.
As to when they were crafted, sometime between 1908 and 1938.
-
Patrick, Yes it was definitely there in 1938. Scotland's Gift may help us bracket the date a bit tighter.
In SG, CBM wrote about coming up with the idea for a three hole practice facility after having designed Payne Whitney's 9 hole course on "some twenty or thirty acres"* behind Whitney's home in Manhasset. "This suggested to me the building of a practice ground on six acres by grouping three well-known classical greens, namely, a short hole, an Eden hole, and a Redan . . .." He then goes on to describe the shape of the tee (different than NGLA) and mentions one of these practice areas near NY. That he didn't mention having built one at NGLA suggests that it might have been built after the book.
At any rate, dating the Whitney course might help narrow it down. Added: George wrote that CBM designed this course in 1915, so it doesn't help that much
*By Mike Cirba's strange logic, CBM hadn't yet designed this course, because he didn't tell us the exact acreage.
-
Patrick,
On this page you have accused Mike and I of "intellectual dishonesty" over different things.
That's correct
I suggest you and the others on this thread read the following article on "Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty" at this web site:
I don't need to read third party information to recognize "intellectual dishonesty"
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/ (https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/)
I found it thought provoking in the context of our collective sometimes rancorous arguments on here. No doubt we all fail some of the ten signs from time to time - in my opinion you fail more of them, more of the time. So, at the very least you are the kettle calling the pot black.
Not really.
Time after time you and Mike have exhibited that trait.
One only has to look at the question I posed regarding the date of the model.
I asked, "if the model was crafted prior to April 1908, isn't that proof that CBM intended the clubhouse to be sited at it's present location ?"
Mike responds words to the effect that, if CBM created the model before 1906 it means he was clairvoyant.
And you don't think that's being ID ?
As to you, you've made an inordinate number of conflicting and erroneous statements and put them forth as maxims.
I'd like to attribute your errors to your lack of familiarity with NGLA, but I can't because they're agenda driven and not solely the product of ignorance
As for latest attack on my intellectual honesty - I don't see what you see in the model.
That's a repetitive habit with you.
You DON'T understand, due to your lack of familiarity with NGLA, hence you don't see in the model what EVERYONE in the universe who's intimately familiar with NGLA sees.
It's your lack of knowledge combined with a measure of arrogance that gets you in trouble.
First it was no roads, then there was a network of roads, the it was the topography, then it was sunrise/sunset, then it's back to the topography and now the model.
Yet, despite your overwhelming lack of knowledge you keep making authoritive statements and drawing conclusions that are dramatically flawed.
You have an agenda and haven't admitted it, and that alone is intellectually dishonest.
You know it and I know it.
If you say you see a clubhouse in that green blob in a figure eight you have every right to state that. I don't see it as a clubhouse. That's my honest opinion after analyzing the picture of the model and considering your belief.
Your conclusion is the byproduct of your ignorance.
What do you think the purpose of that circle or figure 8 is ?
One sign of intellectual honesty is to "Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist." I acknowledge that you have an alternative viewpoint - I'm not real sure about the reasonableness of it, but you're entitled to it. Have you ever publicly acknowledged anyone else's viewpoint as reasonable when you didn't agree with it.
Absolutely, and the person/s with whom I had that disagreement with were David Moriarty and Tom MacWood.
In both instances I acknowledged their viewpoints, which I originally disagreed with, and subsequently acknowledged that I thought that their viewpoints were in fact correct. So much so that I subsequently advocated on their behalf.
Or, do you always resort to ad hominem attacks?
My strident disagreements with you on NGLA and PV are not so much based on your posturing as an expert on both courses, but on holding your opinions and conclusions out to be "fact"
A prime example is your arguing with me that there were NO roads accessible to NGLA during design and construction.
Then I ask, "well, if there were no roads, how'd they get those 20,000 trips back and forth when importing dirt to NGLA during construction.
Then, when discussing the Shinnecock Inn you declared that there was an entire network of roads prior to the design of NGLA and construction of NGLA
And you don't think that's not being intellectually dishonest ? ? ?
You must be kidding.
You can't have it both ways
Enough navel gazing, now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Agreed, and now I'd like to call on you to perform a measurement.
Would you please measure the distance of 200 and 300 yards from a point 30 yards south of the current 9th green, SOUTH, on the 1904 roadmap.
I suspect that 200 or 300 yards might take one to the other side of the access road to the Shinnecock Inn.
Thanks.
P.S. Don't take it personally, after all I did anoint you with colossal moron status at Streamsong 😜
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/398/18489075966_3f69c48562_z.jpg)
-
David,
Please take a pause from hurling personal insults and catch your breath please. They really have no effect on me except perhaps as a source of sadness as I shake my head in dismay and even personal concern at how much of your life you've spent railing at my each and every post since I returned here a few months back.
You should really consider all of this continual invective David. It can't be healthy or good for you and your life. Even if you're right, and that's debatable and even if you have dyed in the wool Macdonald-philes like Pat and his sycophants clinging cloyingly to your every word just to keep his personal attempts at filibuster and shouting down all dissenting opinions dominating the discussion here, please take care of yourself first.
I'm sure you'll ignore me and likely just continue your personal attacks but I wouldn't feel right if I wasn't honest with you.
-
Personal insult? I must have missed it. Besides, this isn't personal, Mike. I am just commenting on your various theories. Bill is the one who called your latest theory a pile of crap. And I haven't railed at each and every post. I have commented (and will continue to comment) on some of the posts that don't really make sense. Unfortunately, there have been a very large number of those.
Now, will you ever explain why CBM would have measured the exact distance between the Inn and the first tee?
Before answering, take a pause and really think about the question. Why do you insist that he would have needed an exact yardage on the walk to the tee?
-
David,
That response came in 8 minutes.
I've had stalkers pay me less attention than you do.
Really...go for a walk. Play golf. Spend some time with your family.
What I write here really isn't nearly as important as you're making it. Really.
-
Mike,
It's been several days !
Please answer the very simple question I posed to you, despite how painful it might be.0
If the model was created prior to April, 1908, wouldn't that prove that CBM always intended the clubhouse to be sited where it currently sits ?
-
Mike, and yours came in 19. Whenever you are struggling with the argument you start claiming I am picking on you and telling me how to live my life. I assure you you no nothing of my life. How about we stick to the issues? Or, if you want to pontificate without comment or critique, then stick to your offsite email chains.
Now, about that question you keep ducking . . .
-
Mike,
It's been several days !
Please answer the very simple I posed to you, despite how painful it might be.0
If the model was created prior to April, 1908, wouldn't that prove that CBM always intended the clubhouse to be sited where it currently sits ?
Pat,
It depends. I have no idea if that model was created in a single iteration or if it was added to and/or modified over time.
I'd really like to see it up close, frankly, because my aging eyes have a difficult time making out much from Sven's blurry picture.
I've only been to NGLA three times but the first was the best. A lovely 70 degree early November day as the only two on the course with Mike Rewinski as my guide, eye-balling distances without a hint of yardage.
I can guarantee you that I didn't try to drive the green directly on 14, even if Macdonald said it was only a 240 yard carry to the green. ;)
Second most memorable was playing Sebonack in the morning followed by National in the afternoon, playing downwind on the way out and into a brilliant fall sunset coming home into that same constant headwind where I hit almost every inward shot on the middle of the clubface. Making par on 5 of the last six holes was exhilerating,!
I honestly don't have any strong opinion regarding your theory of where the clubhouse was intended except to say that your initial post is incongruous.
-
David,
I've answered your question twice. If you don't agree that's fine, you never do simply because it's me. It's become...hmmm...expected.
I'm curious if you've been to NGLA? It's ok if you havent, I'm not going to berate you as Patrick does to Bryan and others, but after all of this discussion I'm intellectually curious.
-
Mike,
It's been several days !
Please answer the very simple I posed to you, despite how painful it might be.0
If the model was created prior to April, 1908, wouldn't that prove that CBM always intended the clubhouse to be sited where it currently sits ?
Pat,
It depends. I have no idea if that model was created in a single iteration or if it was added to and/or modified over time.
Mike, That's irrelevant.
If it was made prior to April, 1908 it doesn't matter if it was a single sitting or 1,000 sittings.
It's the fact that it was completed before the fire that's the relevant aspect.
I'd really like to see it up close, frankly, because my aging eyes have a difficult time making out much from Sven's blurry picture.
Again, irrelevant
I've only been to NGLA three times but the first was the best. A lovely 70 degree early November day as the only two on the course with Mike Rewinski as my guide, eye-balling distances without a hint of yardage.
You're avoiding the question again
I can guarantee you that I didn't try to drive the green directly on 14, even if Macdonald said it was only a 240 yard carry to the green. ;)
More diversionary tactics
Second most memorable was playing Sebonack in the morning followed by National in the afternoon, playing downwind on the way out and into a brilliant fall sunset coming home into that same constant headwind where I hit almost every inward shot on the middle of the clubface. Making par on 5 of the last six holes was exhilerating,!
Agreed, but, irrelevant
I honestly don't have any strong opinion regarding your theory of where the clubhouse was intended except to say that your initial post is incongruous.
I'm not asking for the strength of your opinion.
I'm asking, "if the model was created prior to April, 1908, the date the Shinnecock Inn burned down, isn't that proof that CBM always intended to site his clubhouse where it currently sits ?
Yes or No ?
-
David,
I've answered your question twice. If you don't agree that's fine, you never do simply because it's me. It's become...hmmm...expected.
I'm curious if you've been to NGLA? It's ok if you havent, I'm not going to berate you as Patrick does to Bryan and others, but after all of this discussion I'm intellectually curious.
Mike,
There's a difference.
Bryan offers his opinions as fact, when time after time he's been contradictory with his opinions or just flat out wrong.
You do remember him declaring that there were no roads in 1906 and subsequently declaring that there was a network of roads prior to 1906, don't you ?
You and Bryan seem to have convenient, selective memories.
-
Pat,
Bryan and I have had numerous disagreements here but never have I doubted his sincere intent to seek objective truth.
I'm all for good and healthy debate here but this villainization of those who disagree with you and/or David on the slightest point is really disgraceful.
You and David may have chased others like professional architect Jeff Brauer from this discussion with repeated insults and abuse but Pat..I respect and like you personally and know you're better than that. If your arguments are sound you really shouldn't have to sink to these levels.
-
Mike,
Sorry if this seems like piling on at the moment, but I think your interpretation of the 200 - 300 yards Macdonald quote is a bit stretched.
"A modern inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests."
Your interpretation,
And, if he hadn't yet determined by December 1906 if his first tee was going to be 2 football fields or 3 football fields away from the Inn that was being constructed he probably hadn't routed and determined his first hole yet.
I do see that you used "probably", so I understand that you are not drawing an absolute conclusion.
IF Macdonald had said, "A modern inn is being built within 282 yards of the back of our first tee by outside interests." THEN I think we could all say that CBM knew exactly where the Inn and his 1st tee were at that moment in time.
You seem to be using the converse - IF he didn't know the exact measure THEN he didn't know where his 1st tee was going to be because he hadn't routed the course yet.
However, there are a number of other plausible logical reasons why he did not use an exact measure.
1. He might have forgotten the exact yardage during the interview.
2. He might not have measured it.
3. He might not have cared exactly how far it was because either 200 or 300 yards was close enough for him.
4. He might not have cared about the SI, because the members would be most often walking from the locker/bath house that would be closer
You're entitled to your opinion but there are other more plausible interpretations in my opinion.
For whatever it's worth, the middle of the current 1st tee is about 200 yards from the front door of the current clubhouse and 300 yards from the middle of the current parking lot. I guess 200 - 300 yards was not too far.
-
Some more questions.
Why did Macdonald include in his 1907 purchase of 205 acres the almost 6 acres to the south of the current 9th green?
Having bought it as part of the parcel, why didn't he use it for anything?
Money seemed to be a concern at the time, so why buy the land and then not use it for anything?
-
Bryan,
I think he would have been very aware of the distance but understand and respect your point. And I am speculating based on very little evidence here, as are we all. I'm siding with my sense that Macdonald was very scientific and precise in his approach to everything related to his golf course.
-
David,
I've answered your question twice.
No. You've twice went on about how the relative location of the clubhouse was important, but you have never explained why CBM would have needed an exact measure as opposed to an approximate idea of the distance.
If you don't agree that's fine, you never do simply because it's me. It's become...hmmm...expected.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I disagree with you because I think you are wrong? Did you ever notice that when I do disagree with you, it often turns out that you are, in fact, wrong? You can wave the martyr flag all you like, but one only need consider the unreasonable positions you've taken over the years to realize that you have brought my disagreement upon yourself.
I'm curious if you've been to NGLA? It's ok if you havent, I'm not going to berate you as Patrick does to Bryan and others, but after all of this discussion I'm intellectually curious.
You are intellectually curious, are you? Nice try at trolling, Mike, but yes, I have played NGLA. I just don't feel the need to wax on about my game when my game has nothing to do with the history of the course.
I'm all for good and healthy debate here but this villainization of those who disagree with you . . .
Oh, this is rich coming from you, Mike. You and your sleazy buddies have been trying to "villain-ize" me on and off this website ever since I dared point out some factual problems with some certain legends, and you are still at it today. Look at your posts immediately above, where you try to pretend this is all about me picking on you and not about the substantive issues. What is that except for your latest attempt to "villain-ize" me?
-
Attention Squabbling Kindergarteners,
While neither I - nor the Emperor - have waded through this avalanche of accusatory invective, obtuse speculation and argumentative horseshit, I'd like to point out amidst this juvenile taffy pull that we (along with Jeff "I'm was a plus 3.75, but struggling to play to a plus 2" Fortson) all made the same observation Saturday night regarding the steaming chasm between this syphilitic, 55 page circular argument and simple logic regarding Roaring 20's amenities like yacht docking and golf practice areas - not to mention the cat house across Bullhead Bay for the head bulls.
This lunacy has the peculiar odor of a proxy war between a pair of warring lurkers who need to grow up, file your points and authorities - and let somebody else have the last word. Never thought I would see anything more absurd than the Merion thread . . . . . . .
Take a step back for a minute, read what I wrote above, think it through from the perspective of what was important to men like C.B. Mac., Judge Morgan O'Brien and Findlay Douglas and get back to me about this insane argument about placement of the clubhouse.
Occam's Razor.
-
David,
Find someone else to argue with.
Despite repeated warnings from many others I tried to have a civil conversation with you.
I was an idiot and won't repeat that error. The only way to put out a fire is to deprive it of oxygen.
-
Pat,
Bryan and I have had numerous disagreements here but never have I doubted his sincere intent to seek objective truth.
Mike,
Again, you refuse to answer the question I asked you and once again attempt to divert/deflect away from that question.
So, answer my question and stop the B.S.
this isn't about you and Bryan
I'm all for good and healthy debate here but this villainization of those who disagree with you and/or David on the slightest point is really
I happen to like Bryan, but he's being agenda driven, as you sometimes are.
As Bill brightly stated, you/Bryan have draw your conclusions and are desperately seeking facts to support your agenda.disgraceful.
You and David may have chased others like professional architect Jeff Brauer from this discussion with repeated insults and abuse but Pat..I respect and like you personally and know you're better than that.
Mike, Jeff Brauer is no shrinking violet and has conducted himself no differently then anyone else, so please, let's not hold him up as a paragon of virtue.
If your arguments are sound you really shouldn't have to sink to these levels.
When I have to ask you the same question a dozen times and you refuse to answer it, how does that contribute to having sound debates.
You have a pattern of not answering question due to your agenda/s.
David and I have a pattern of answering all of the questions we're asked.
Once again you're avoiding answering the question by diversionary tactics and that's being disingenuous
-
Gib,
I write and speak for myself, thanks.
Speaking of proxy, I instinctively figured that coming back here I'd be a target-by-proxy, standing in to catch the residual fire directed at folks long-gone from this site. I thought, hey, no biggie...I'll just keep it civil and discuss history, and golf courses, and present facts and opinions and what's the worst that can happen? ::)
I was encouraged by Ran's post at the beginning of the year asking folks to step up their game here, as well as inspired to come back seeing some of the terrific research being done by Sven and some others.
The funny thing is that if I see Wayne or Tom more than once or twice a year these days that's a lot. Yes, I get the group emails, big deal. I think you guys are forgetting that I'm a public-course guy who doesn't run in those circles.
I'm here for my own reasons.
-
Patrick,
As ill brightly stated, you/Bryan have draw your conclusions and are desperately seeking facts to support your agenda.
Is Bill sick? Sorry to hear that if he is.
Bill directed his comments to Mike alone. You have misrepresented them to include me. If you had read the article on the ten signs of intellectual honesty you would know that you just breached sign 8. "When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it."
Now if you follow your usual modus operandi you will breach sign 5. "Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong."
-
#1. I know exactly who is lurking, so please don’t insult my intelligence. It is somebody who - although he has serious differences with another Treehouse friend I idolize - is a fine gentleman and scholar. The historical truth about this polarizing discussion is likely somewhere in the middle.
#2. To paraphrase Eric Hoffer, who opined that WWII was not a separate event, but really a continuation of WWI, this discussion is just a continuation of the Merion thread.
#3. Somewhere, Uncle George, Macdonald, Raynor and Judge O’Brien are looking down at this thread laughing at all of you.
#4. Nothing in history occurred in a vacuum - everybody, whether directly, indirectly, by example or viscerally, built upon the foundation of previous ideas. Think about that for a minute.
And as you idiots chase your tails around the Sambo tree, here is a little perspective for you. The last time I saw Bernhardt, Katie drove him by our film set on their way to Pebble Beach. By that time, he had withered to nothing on a feeding tube and struggling to breathe.
John, who could once golf and drink everybody under the table, quickly started to tire and I helped him to the car, promising to see him soon - but knowing I’d never see my friend again. As he left, we embraced and he quietly croaked in my ear “I love you.”
I told him “I love you too, brother” because I meant it with every fiber of my being. Katie tearfully started the car and Tiger Bernhardt disappeared from my life forever. He was gone a month later.
So you know what? Who gives a fuck whether Macdonald planned to put the clubhouse behind the 9th green or atop the bluffs? Whether the Wilson brothers consulted with Charles Macdonald or Charlie Chaplan before they built Merion is of no more importance beyond an amusing intellectual exercise in speculation.
When they wheeled Uncle George’s coffin out of that church, my first thought was how he taught me a whole lot more about life than golf history - and that all of us are going to say goodbye to each other one at a time, until nobody and nothing is left but that windmill above Sebonac inlet and bunch of data in a Treehouse that only exists in our hearts and minds.
I hope this is the last post on this horrible, destructive thread - and that everybody take off your hats and apologize to each other for acting like you’re immortal.
-
Gib, I know you mean well and I miss John and George, too. And Tom MacWood.
___________________________________________________________________
One of the interesting aspects of the blueprint is how well the golf holes line up with what exists today. The most notable exception to this happens to be the current 9th hole, which was originally supposed to be the 18th. The green as marked on the blueprint looks like it is around 70-90 yards short of the current green. This gibes with something I recall George having said or written. If I recall correctly he said that the original 18th green was moved back at some point, but I don't know if he was interpreting the same thing I am interpreting, or if there is some evidence that the green was originally built at the shorter location and then moved back very early in the history of the course.
The stick routing from 1907 lists the hole at 440 yards which is about what it would have measured if built according to the blueprint. The 1911 scorecard lists the hole at 525. So the hole was either built to the longer specifications during construction, or it was built to the shorter specs and changed at some point between 1907 and 1911. I don't know which.
-
Gib,
GCA.COM IS a hobby, a diversion from the more pressing issues in life.
An interest that's a source of information and entertainment.
When I leave the keyboard I leave what I've read and what I've typed behind me.
Compartmentalization has always served me well.
Tiger and I often discussed GCA, our battles with cancer and college football.
We agreed on two out of three.
I think you have to view the GCA.com discussions/debates from the perspective that they're just that, discussions/debates on shared interest topics.
Some are passionate about GCA and sometimes those passions rise to the level where they become contentious.
If we all agreed on every topic it would be a boring site absent much in the way of participation.
I wouldn't fret about the discussions/debates/arguments as in the general scheme of things they don't count for much
-
Mike,
Now, could you answer my question ?
Gib,
I agree on # 2
-
Gib,
I understand your dismay regarding the "tone" of the discussion, but that doesn't render the topic/s being discussed, irrelevant,
We're all interested, some to the point of passion, in golf course architecture.
Hence, in the context of golf course architecture, it does matter if Flynn sailed to the U.K. In 1910 or if C.B. Macdonald was instrumental in the design of Merion or where he intended his clubhouse to be at NGLA.
We're architectural geeks/junkies.
We're interested in all aspects of GCA.
We appreciate it when architects and superintendents and Pros participate and contribute.
And............ We have differences of opinion.
And, when you combine passion with differences of opinion the tone often intensifies.
It comes with the turf.
I like Mike Cirba, even though he's a lefty, but we disagree on some topics and agree on others.
While he does have a propensity to avoid answering challenging questions, he has an open invitation to play with me, as do you.
I like Bryan Izatt too.
I even anointed him, in person, with colossal moron status, and to this day haven't regretted that decision.😆😜
I disagreed, vehemently, with Tom MacWood and David on a number of issues, but came to agree with them when they presented information that would cause a prudent man to reconsider. So, you're going to get strident if not contentious debate
I suspect that you're more upset by the classless/tasteless chain email from Mike's lurker friend and are venting because of it.
I understand that.
But let's not stifle debate because of the classless/tasteless actions of someone who's not even on GCA.com.
P.S. I could have used the low Armenian draw today
-
Patrick,
I'll answer your question and then I think it best to let this thread move to the back pages, unless someone comes up with some new information.
Certainly finding the original Sales Agreement(s) signed in December 1906 and June 1907 would go a long way to answering most of what's being argued about here but otherwise we're all just becoming redundant, and probably embarrassingly so.
You asked if that model was built/finalized before April 1908 wouldn't it be proof that Macdonald always planned to use the present site for his clubhouse.
Without being wishy-washy, I'd say no, it's not proof, but it would certainly go a long way towards evidencing Macdonald's intentions.
The caveat is simply because CBM optioned the land in December 1906 and finalized the routing sometime in the spring of 1907, commencing construction in May of that year. It's possible he got the idea sometime during 1907 as the land was being cleared, which is still early, but not "always intended" per your original post, however you worded it.
I don't avoid difficult questions, I just avoid leading ones. ;)
-
Mike,
If you think that asking you if "2 plus 2 equals 4" is a leading question, I certainly understand why you would find that a difficult question to answer.
If that model was crafted prior to April of 1908 it's proof positive that CBM intended the current site to be the site for his clubhouse before the Shinnecock Inn burned down.
And, if the date of that model is subsequent to April, 1908, it doesn't disprove that CBM intended the current site to be his intended site, prior to April, 1908.
-
Pat,
That's pretty garbled grammar but I get your subtle change of always intended to intended before the Shinny Inn was toast. ;)
Perhaps his members didn't like the Inn or couldn't stand those greasy motorists with bug spattered faces from roaring down the Shinnecock Highway at 16 mph?
Not to mention all those women members of Shinnecock! ;D
-
Bryan, Here is an early photo of NGLA's 18th, published in the January 1913 edition of Golf. It gives some idea of coastline at the early stage, and it seems to basically look like beach. I am not exactly sure what is visible in the far left of the photo.
Also amazing is the size of the fairway bunker.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/191301-NGLA-18th-Golf.jpg)
-
David,
The next time I visit I'll try to take a photo from the current set of tees on # 18, at the same angle.
I don't think that's the coast line, rather the flats beneath the practice tee.
I believe the coastline is further to the right.
There are a number of trees that are now surrounding the parking lot that might block views of the clubhouse
There's also something about the clubhouse in your photo that doesn't resemble the current clubhouse.
When I next visit I'll try to reevaluate
-
David,
The next time I visit I'll try to take a photo from the current set of tees on # 18, at the same angle.
I don't think that's the coast line, rather the flats beneath the practice tee.
I believe the coastline is further to the right.
There are a number of trees that are now surrounding the parking lot that might block views of the clubhouse
There's also something about the clubhouse in your photo that doesn't resemble the current clubhouse.
When I next visit I'll try to reevaluate
Pat:
Here's a shot that might give you what you're looking for. Wide angle, taken from the 18th tee (though not quite the exact same angle - if you need a different shot, let me know). I'm also including David's photo for ease of comparison.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3729/18227112054_40d2f6a625_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3722/18844694862_ee54014d7f_o.jpg)
-
I don't think that's the coast line, rather the flats beneath the practice tee.
I believe the coastline is further to the right.
Thanks Patrick. I didn't mean to suggest that it was actually the "coastline" but rather that the land north of the bluff and the 17th was sandy waste and probably wouldn't have played into any of CBM's initial plans. I believe Bryan had speculated that there was usable land north of the 17th and 18th, and I don't think that CBM considered that to be useable, useful land.
There's also something about the clubhouse in your photo that doesn't resemble the current clubhouse.
I has definitely been expanded.
________________________________________________
Jon Cavalier, Thanks for posting your image. It is certainly a good match for the old one.
-
David,
I don't recall speculating that there was usable land to the north of 17 and the first part of 18. I observed that whatever was there was not shown on the model. There was something there that looked like swamp and sand bars on the 1904 topo. From your picture it does look like sandy waste and/or beach. It did get used at some point for the practice area. Anyway, nice picture. Remarkably similar to Jon's current picture.
Patrick,
According to the now gone club history draft there were additions to the clubhouse. The current clubhouse was apparently not built all in one go in 1910-11.
-
Did this thread lose a few days of posts, after they installed the new formatting?
-
Bryan & David,
Thanks.
I'll try to take some pictures from the 18th tee area on my next visit.
When you look at all of these old photos and see how rugged the land and features were, and you consider the rudimentry equipment used in those days, the game of golf had to be one really, really hard game.
And yet, it's popularity kept increasing despite the demands of the game.
I wonder, in today's world, if golfers had to play under those conditions, with that equipment, what the level of whining would be ? And, what would that do to the game's popularity ?
-
Patrick,
That's a very poignant post and I agree.
However, seeing that clubhouse location without the trees in the way really exemplifies what a sharp rise it's located atop.
Why would you think MacDonald would have routed over it instead of around it (as he did) utilizing the best landforms of the bluff near the water and the valley below that embankment?
-
Patrick,
That's a very poignant post and I agree.
However, seeing that clubhouse location without the trees in the way really exemplifies what a sharp rise it's located atop.
Why would you think MacDonald would have routed over it instead of around it (as he did) utilizing the best landforms of the bluff near the water and the valley below that embankment?
Mike,
You have to separate the 18th hole from the 1st hole in this discussion.
The location of the 18th hole is pretty much a universal "given"
Who wouldn't site a hole, whether it ascended or descended at that location.
Since CBM had discovered the 2nd, 3rd and 4th holes at the outset,
He merely had to create a connecting hole between # 18 green and # 2 tee.
He could have easily descended to a green site not far from the 2nd tee by going over the land where the clubhouse sits.
Is it any more steeply sloped than the tee to green slope of # 17 ?
Is the ascent to # 3 more steeply sloped than the slope from # 1 tee down to the area of the 1st green ?
He went around an area well suited for golf because that's where he always wanted to site his clubhouse, with magnificent views of the golf course and Peconic Bay.
On the other hand, there are those who are moronic enough to claim that he would have preferred siting his clubhouse such that he'd be looking up at the clubhouse at Shinnecock with one view and looking at a commercial hotel and it's parking lot next door with another view. ;D
-
Patrick,
I'm not clear that he sited the second hole early in the process. I'm pretty sure that wasn't among the holes he reported finding prior to securing the land in December 1906.
Also, because he had already sited his Alps early I'm not sure he would have created/needed to utilize another steep rise in his routing. I do think the results show that he used the best landforms available for golf.
So, do you know the date of that model?
-
Patrick,
......................
On the other hand, there are those who are moronic enough to claim that he would have preferred siting his clubhouse such that he'd be looking up at the clubhouse at Shinnecock with one view and looking at a commercial hotel and it's parking lot next door with another view. ;D
You do realize that the Shinnecock Inn and the SHGC clubhouse are more or less in the same direction from Macdonald's original clubhouse site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that he abandoned when the SI burned down. That would be the site beside his originally intended 1st and 18th holes. ;D ;D
BTW, how far back does your "always" go? Did he always intend the Peconic Bay site from the day he saw it on the first horseback ride?
-
Patrick,
I'm not clear that he sited the second hole early in the process. I'm pretty sure that wasn't among the holes he reported finding prior to securing the land in December 1906.
Mike,
I think it's pretty clear that he found the 2nd hole early.
The first hole he stated he found was the Alps, the 3rd hole.
If he found the third hole, tee to green, how far away do you think the 2nd green would be ?
On page 191 he describes finding the 2nd hole right after he describes finding the 13th, the Cape.
Subsequently, he goes on to describe how easy the 7th hole, the Road hole, was to duplicate.
Just because he didn't state the order of holes he discovered doesn't mean that the 2nd hole wasn't an early discovery, especially when he stated that the 3rd hole was what led to the 4th hole.
With the 3rd tee established, how obtuse would you have to be not to locate the 2nd green nearby.
Also, because he had already sited his Alps early I'm not sure he would have created/needed to utilize another steep rise in his routing. I do think the results show that he used the best landforms available for golf.
Mike, do you proof read before posting.
If you admit that he found the Alps early, do you really believe he was in the dark as to where to locate the 2nd green ?
Especially given that the property line was tight to the 3rd and 2nd hole.
Essentially, if he didn't discover the Sahara, by default the hole would have been where it presently sits due to the property line and location of the 3rd tee.
As to your absurd landform argument, Macdonald himself states that the 2nd hole is better than the original at St George's
Read page 191, it's the landform that he found attractive for his Sahara.
He describes the play of the hole over the landform you seem to be criticizing.
So, do you know the date of that model?
Nope, wish I did.
Do you ?
-
On the other hand, there are those who are moronic enough to claim that he would have preferred siting his clubhouse such that he'd be looking up at the clubhouse at Shinnecock with one view and looking at a commercial hotel and it's parking lot next door with another view. ;D [/color]
You do realize that the Shinnecock Inn and the SHGC clubhouse are more or less in the same direction from Macdonald's original clubhouse site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that he abandoned when the SI burned down.
"More or Less" ?
Where exactly was that site "near" the SI ?
That would be the site beside his originally intended 1st and 18th holes. ;D ;D
BTW, how far back does your "always" go? Did he always intend the Peconic Bay site from the day he saw it on the first horseback ride?
My guess is that the site became evident/obvious to him after his studying of the land with Whigham.
Did you ever wonder why Sebonack sited their clubhouse in it's current location and not by the gate into Bayberry ?
-
David,
I don't recall speculating that there was usable land to the north of 17 and the first part of 18. I observed that whatever was there was not shown on the model. There was something there that looked like swamp and sand bars on the 1904 topo. From your picture it does look like sandy waste and/or beach. It did get used at some point for the practice area. Anyway, nice picture. Remarkably similar to Jon's current picture.
I must have misunderstood something you had written in an earlier post. For what it is worth, if I recall the model correctly it is mounted on board a, which is painted blue. So I don't think the blue areas are necessarily supposed to be water.
Jon's photo is so close it looks like a setup.
-
Patrick,
Nope...wish I did because it would help to solve the very few remaining mysteries.
I suspect it's closer to 1910 than 1908 given the development of the bunkering plan but wouldn't bet the house on it.