[DMoriarty]

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.

[Adam_Messix]

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.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

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,

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Bryan Izatt]

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?

[MCirba]

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.

[MCirba]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

Yes and it's what the contemporaneous records suggest.

[DMoriarty]

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?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Nigel Islam]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.



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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Nigel Islam]

Thanks David.

[MCirba]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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?

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.  

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()