[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

 

[MCirba]

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..

[MCirba]

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.

[MCirba]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Steve Lang]

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.

Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co plat map.


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

[MCirba]

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.

[MCirba]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[MCirba]

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!   

[MCirba]

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_Mucci]

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.

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!   

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[MCirba]

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.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.  

[Bryan Izatt]

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.

[MCirba]

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.

[MCirba]

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?

[Sven Nilsen]

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

[MCirba]

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.

[Sven Nilsen]

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

[MCirba]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()