[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, That was a Spell Correct error.  I know how to spell your name.  It’s the fucking operating system that changes it while I’m not looking!

You can call me Swen anytime you want if you can get me something saying Behr and Whiting did Capuchino.


Any chance you're confusing it with the proposed "Baden" course, which I am pretty sure is a completely different project?

May 19, 1926 San Francisco Examiner -

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven, That was a Spell Correct error.  I know how to spell your name.  It’s the fucking operating system that changes it while I’m not looking!

I know what you mean, Tomy.

😂🤣😂🤣😂

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven, That course was never built.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, That course was never built.

I know that Tommy.  But it was a Behr/Whiting project that was located somewhat close to the Capuchino Ranch Property.  Easy to see how someone (and I'm not necessarily inferring you) might have confused the two.


[As an aside, the Baden project had ties to the LA area and it makes sense Behr would have been brought in.  Capuchino seemingly was a Bay Area project.]


As I stated, I'd really like to see something tying Behr and Whiting to Capuchino.  I've heard people say it, but I haven't seen it yet, and all of the timing aspects point to MacKenzie and Hunter doing a plan in July of 1926 with construction starting less than a month later and the course being nearly completed in early 1927.  I am not ruling out that the other team came in during that window, but without any concrete evidence it doesn't seem plausible.


Sven

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven, Take my word for it. 

[Joshua Pettit]

Sven,

I believe Tommy is correct, that Capuchino was built by Max Behr.  I recall seeing references to Behr while doing research over the years and I've never seen any article published AFTER the opening of the course that cited MacKenzie and/or Hunter.  Furthermore, I've never seen any reference to Capuchino in any MacKenzie/Hunter correspondence, their published writings, list of projects for their firm's prospectus, or American Golf Course Construction Co. adverts.  Also, the timing doesn't seem to make sense, because Capuchino opened for play before Meadow Club, and had MacKenzie been responsible for Capuchino he surely would have referenced that somewhere along the way while he was pursuing other contracts in California.

There was an article published in the Santa Cruz newspaper after MacKenzie's death that references the fact that he was owed money by Capuchino, so either the "newspaperman" was confusing Capuchino with Union League (now Green Hills) that was across the street, or it may have been that MacKenzie was engaged early on but then had some sort of falling out before any work began (which subsequently would have lead to the club hiring Max Behr).  Either way, the photos I've seen clearly do not depict any work done by MacKenzie & Hunter.

As I stated, I'd really like to see something tying Behr and Whiting to Capuchino.  I've heard people say it, but I haven't seen it yet, and all of the timing aspects point to MacKenzie and Hunter doing a plan in July of 1926 with construction starting less than a month later and the course being nearly completed in early 1927.  I am not ruling out that the other team came in during that window, but without any concrete evidence it doesn't seem plausible.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, Take my word for it.

Tommy:


I hope you can respect me reserving my own judgment on this one until I see something concrete.


Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Josh:


The newspaperman didn't get anything wrong.  Capuchino was reported as a debtor to the estate by multiple sources.  That comes from the filed court documents.


Here's a theory.  MacKenzie and Hunter did design the course, as reported in the summer of 1926.  But that is where the involvment ended.  The club took their plans and built the course themselves, they were afterall basically a real estate concern, and had the wherewithal.  MacKenzie was never paid on the Notes the club gave him for the design work, probably due to the club going belly up.


As for the rest of your post about timing, we can agree to disagree.  I think it all makes perfect sense if you think about in terms of projects that were designed and built and projects where only a design was handed over.


Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Further to the last post, both Capuchino and Union League were listed as owing MacKenzie in the newspaper article Josh references. 


I don't think one of those clubs was being confused for the other.


Sven

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven, I don’t partake in revisionist history. You do what you gotta do!

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, I don’t partake in revisionist history. You do what you gotta do!

All I am asking for is something concrete. 

Right now the only revisionism taking place is you and Josh claiming the following article was wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

FWIW:  In doing research today for an article I'm writing on a completely different topic, I was doing a Google search and stumbled upon the announcement of Bruce Hepner designing the second course at Ballyneal - reported by the authoritative Ron Whitten   


I don't know if it was true back in the old days, because developers weren't as worried about permitting issues and public opposition as they are today, but nowadays the projects that are announced first are the ones that are looking for money:  i.e., Pacific Gales.  The ones that are well funded stay mum until they have permission to break ground.  I can't post half the places I'm working on Instagram yet, because they are still top secret!

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


Are you aware of any modern day projects that were announced and a month later construction started with a different team?


Sven

[JC Urbina]

Sven,




Robert Hunter did not get the credit he was due.  Creative, knowledgeable, a communicator, and most importantly a listener.


He got it done when others were too busy talking.

[Forrest Richardson]

Not sure where Joshua is headed with the note about Berkeley CC (Mira Vista) not being a "theoretical" Hunter Design. Berkeley is really his only solo design as far as we have ever been able to tell. What could be more theoretical to define one's work?

Hunter wrote in detail about his design, which Mark Fine and I feel had very little to do with Watson. Hunter founded the club with a few others and searched for the land. While perhaps not 100% ideal in terms of terrain, it is an excellent routing across ridges and valleys. One of the misconceptions is that it is "not walkable" to which I would direct you to the 80 years old members who walk it several times per week. The clubhouse is perhaps one of the greatest promontory sites ever — overlooking SF Bay and territorial views at 270 degrees.

Berkeley CC (Hunter himself) most likely assigned the drawing of plans to Watson, a "ghost writer" of sorts. There is very little on record of Watson even being on site during construction. Hunter, on the other hand, penned the last publicity article before opening and spoke at length about the planning, strategy and building. Watson also may have diffused the tension at play with Hunter being at Berkeley teaching Socialism while being married into a wealthy family and suddenly taking up golf — even more — founding an elite club right above the campus.

We always wondered why he never mentioned Berkeley in THE LINKS. Our theory includes:

1. He had then become embedded with MacKenzie and likely did not want to tout his own work done before the relationship
2. He had a falling out with the founders at Berkeley CC — over what, we are not certain
3. MacKenzie opened his eyes to the ideal site, routing principals and other nuances — many of which were not embraced at Berkeley, at least to the degree Hunter wrote of their importance in THE LINKS

Maybe Mark Fine will come back and shed some light. I, too, am busy and cannot spend a lot of time at the moment. But this is very nice to see Hunter featured in a discussion. Bottom line: Berkeley CC is probably the only solo design out there, which is why it is such a fascinating course to play and study.

[Forrest Richardson]

Some images of Berkeley CC

Hole 13

Hole 8


Hole 6


Hole 5

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:  Are those giant rocks in the bunker in the last picture?  Has that always been there?



Also, to your previous post:  was Hunter really partners with MacKenzie before the publication of THE LINKS?  I had never read it that way.  I guess its official date of publication was 1926 and their partnership started the previous fall, but I had assumed that Hunter had already written his book and put it to bed by then.  If not, then his case for being the genius behind MacKenzie [which is already shaky] takes another giant step backwards.

[Forrest Richardson]

Rocks: yes, they have always been there. Bunker: no, it was added to contrast the rocks so they would read better from the tees. Before the paved road and neighborhood (immediately left of the bunkers) the area along No. 5 was a barren area that melded into an old dirt road all along the left of the par-4. Beginning in the 1950s-60s Berkeley CC began getting crowded with development along the perimeter, and the club even sold off some land to home builders. Fortunately that stopped. No. 5 is an example of a hole that gradually shifted right and we gave it as much width as possible by taking some of it back to the left. Hence, the rock/bunker combination.

The Watson plan highlights a few rock outcrops, and even some cypress trees that were apparently "hazards".

I cannot recall the details of the actual partnership, but Hunter and MacKenzie began a friendship (and possibly a working relationship) leading up to THE LINKS. It seems to me that Hunter's interest in writing something about golf may even have been the catalyst that got him talking to MacKenzie.

[Sven Nilsen]

Copied below are two articles on Berkeley, the first covering Hunter's activities in selecting the site and starting to plan the course, the second a post-construction article that highlights a bit of the relationship in the design process between Hunter and Watson.

I am not sure if I agree with Forrest's assessment that Watson's role was merely to draw the plans.  As the second article notes in discussing the 17th hole, there was a bit of collaboration between the two before the final plan was decided on.  In the press, the coverage started noting just Hunter, but very early on it was clearly delineated as a Watson design.  It makes sense that Hunter brought in the "professional" and deferred to Watson's expertise on certain matters.

April 2, 1920 San Francisco Chronicle -



April 17, 1923 Oakland Tribune -

[Sven Nilsen]

And here's an article noting William Watson and James Watson handling construction.

Oct. 28, 1920 Oakland Tribune -

[Forrest Richardson]

Perhaps "Fake News" of the time...   But, I digress...

If you do believe everything in the newspaper, keep in mind that it was Hunter who, as the first article notes, devoted "....countless hours of hard thought and careful planning..." Again, we know Hunter was shielding himself from being in the "business" of golf — as much as practical — while still pushing the agenda for the course in local news. That, after all, drove membership and interest.
   
And, on February 2, 1926 the Berkeley Daily Gazette published an interview of Dr. MacKenzie under the heading, LOCAL GOLF LINKS PRAISED BY NOTED BRITISH DESIGNER.  According to Dr. MacKenzie:
     
"Berkeley Country Club offers the most impressive bit of course design in the San Francisco Bay district. The San Francisco Golf Club afforded Donald Ross excellent ground for a fine piece of work.  It is probably the best golf test hereabouts.  The scenic grandeur of the ocean links of the Olympic Club is approached only by Gleneagles, Scotland.  But for taking nothing but a mass of hills and making a real golf course, Robert Hunter must be praised.  At Berkeley, Hunter has contrived so that all ascent are gradual and each hole has its share of hazard without being too difficult." 

Further, Ed Brawley (author of Speaking Out for America's Poor [biography on Hunter]), who we relied on for some of the insight into the conflicting projections that Hunter went through upon taking up the game of golf and golf design, suggested that Hunter's tenure working on Berkeley CC was very likely the period in which he began to immerse himself in the art of golf architecture. Mark and I have no doubt that Watson drew up the plans and even continued in some limited role at Berkeley, but all of the background suggests it was Hunter who was leading the charge(s) at Berkeley and making nearly all of the design decisions.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, according to that last clipping it was Hunter and "H. Spens Black" [I think; it's a bit fuzzy] who are responsible for making an interesting and exacting test of the course.


Can't wait until we get to the level where we recognize H. Spens Black as the true Thought Leader of the revolution. 

[Forrest Richardson]

Doubt that will happen    Besides, "thought leaders" are overrated.

I believe Spens-Black was a founder. My recollection is that he may also have been on the faculty at Berkeley. Not sure, but I will be at the club in a week or so and will ask the history group.

[Sven Nilsen]

Well, according to that last clipping it was Hunter and "H. Spens Black" [I think; it's a bit fuzzy] who are responsible for making an interesting and exacting test of the course.

They were trying out shots.  That is all that sentence means.

[Peter Pallotta]

Though not related (or perhaps even relevant) it's hard not to draw some parallel to the Merion story, and to the adding/laying out of hazards 'post facto' (from our modern perspective) as a critical aspect of the 'design'. In other words, just reading this thread as an outsider & architectural neophyte, I find myself wondering if we are not projecting back our own notions about the role of the 'lead architect' into the time & onto the very people (ie Hunter, Dr Mac etc) who were then still just figuring out & formalizing those very notions that we now take for granted.
P

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()