[Niall C]

I have never played Merion or even studied its routing or design so have absolutely nothing to add about who did what and when when it comes to the design.

However, being Scottish, and having an interest in early course designs I feel I should at least make some contribution to defending the much maligned Scottish pros and there "18 staked holes on a sunday afternoon".

I think I'm right in saying the Merion course was designed and built round about 1912. I think I'm also right in saying that in those days they didn't shift nearly as much muck in building a golf course as they do now, possibly only in building tees, greens and bunkers.

Assuming therefore that not much muck was shifted would it be fair to assume that the routing would have been more important then in taking advantage of natural features/contours and that these features might suggest/dictate the strategy for the hole or how the bunkering was placed ? Could you really divorce the routing process from the more detailed design ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

I have never played Merion or even studied its routing or design so have absolutely nothing to add about who did what and when when it comes to the design.

However, being Scottish, and having an interest in early course designs I feel I should at least make some contribution to defending the much maligned Scottish pros and there "18 staked holes on a sunday afternoon".

I think I'm right in saying the Merion course was designed and built round about 1912. I think I'm also right in saying that in those days they didn't shift nearly as much muck in building a golf course as they do now, possibly only in building tees, greens and bunkers.

Assuming therefore that not much muck was shifted would it be fair to assume that the routing would have been more important then in taking advantage of natural features/contours and that these features might suggest/dictate the strategy for the hole or how the bunkering was placed ? Could you really divorce the routing process from the more detailed design ?

Niall

Niall

To be honest, I would be very surprised if there are too many archies today who ignore topographical features (including green sites which I think are a very important aspect of the routing) when routing.  I know Melvyn feels differently and I could be wrong, but I would have thought archies are nearly always on the lookout for a routing which takes advantage of at least some topographical features.

Ciao

[Niall C]

I have never played Merion or even studied its routing or design so have absolutely nothing to add about who did what and when when it comes to the design.

However, being Scottish, and having an interest in early course designs I feel I should at least make some contribution to defending the much maligned Scottish pros and there "18 staked holes on a sunday afternoon".

I think I'm right in saying the Merion course was designed and built round about 1912. I think I'm also right in saying that in those days they didn't shift nearly as much muck in building a golf course as they do now, possibly only in building tees, greens and bunkers.

Assuming therefore that not much muck was shifted would it be fair to assume that the routing would have been more important then in taking advantage of natural features/contours and that these features might suggest/dictate the strategy for the hole or how the bunkering was placed ? Could you really divorce the routing process from the more detailed design ?

Niall

Niall

To be honest, I would be very surprised if there are too many archies today who ignore topographical features (including green sites which I think are a very important aspect of the routing) when routing.  I know Melvyn feels differently and I could be wrong, but I would have thought archies are nearly always on the lookout for a routing which takes advantage of at least some topographical features.

Ciao

Sean,

I would certainly hope so and be very surprised if they didn't. My point was to try and give these early guys the credit which I think they are due and to promote the role of routing to more than what maybe some consider it to be. I believe it was common for the course to be largely layed out, and by that I mean largely built with greens and tees, and the bunkers to be added at a later date. However I can't help feeling that they must have had a very good idea as to where they were roughly going to put the bunkers once they had settled on the routing.

That last part is conjecture on my part however I would be interested to hear from modern architects if when they do a routing, that the routing of a particular hole suggests/dictates what the strategy for that hole will be. I would have thought that the land must have to be incredibly flat/bland for the routing not to have some bearing on the strategy for the hole.

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Sorry Mate but I am a little confused or I have confused you. I though I said that the Routing was the actual design element for me and if so would take in the natural feature (which I am always in favour of). By Routing, I take it to mean including locating the Tees positions Fairways and Greens. Take in Natural or Man Made Hazards but the routing is the Design element for me – as I said all other features are additional and subject to site and clients brief/budget.

I am a keen supporter of natural and am nearly violently against sites like the Castle Course being made into a course.

The days seem to have gone when deep pockets and large budgets were available to build a course in locations Not Fit for Purpose. The old fashion ways seem to hold a clue to the direction we perhaps should be seeking.

Nevertheless, the Course Designer is the actual person who routed the course, he is not necessary the map/plan maker, the Professional or a Celebrity.

I hope this clears up my position.

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:

In nearly all cases, when I do a routing plan for a course I also draw golf holes complete with bunkers on the plan ... mostly to give it some life, because the people who will be looking at the plan are probably not adept at reading contour maps.

In general I would guess that something like 50% of the bunkers on those initial routing maps winds up in the same position on the finished course.  We change the rest in the field because we have spent a lot more time on site and have refined our ideas more -- and also because there are more people involved in the process then and everyone wants to add their .02 cents.

[JESII]

Tom,

Is it fair for me to ask which part better represents the profession of golf course architecture...the drawing and planning (including preliminary routing(s), or the field work that develops the course?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  Sure, it's fair to ask, although it may not be fair for me to answer, because I'm biased toward my own way of doing things.  Actually, though, I think the correct answer is that BOTH parts are essential to creating a successful golf course.

In my own firm, I'm responsible for 90% of the routings we have done ... sometimes Don Placek in the office or the lead associate for the job helps work out part of the routing, but I'm always the main guy there.  On most jobs, except for the big earthmoving jobs like Texas Tech, that's the bulk of the planning work, just as it was in the good old days ... grading plans don't matter because nearly all of the work falls under "shaping".

The field work during construction is the other 50% of the equation.  This is when we do most of the "designing up" as Tom Paul refers to it, and in my company there is a very free flow on this part of the job ... all of the shapers and the lead associate are contributing their ideas on the ground, and I make my visits to give them directions and edit their work.  I spend more time on-site on this half of the job than the first half [probably between 25 and 30 days on site during construction], but if you count the office days working on the routings it's probably about 50-50 as to my time.  If we were busier, I would guess I'd do more of the routing than the on-site stuff, because I've got better backup for the latter -- and really our style of design relies quite a lot on getting the holes in the right places to minimize the need for on-site changes.

Different architects have different approaches.  Some or most of the pros hand off the routing work to their associates, and spend all their time on site (however much it is) making design suggestions in the field, so clearly they think that is the more important part.  I don't know of many who do it the other way around, although there are quite a few architects who draw up detailed plans and then rely on the construction company to build it, making relatively few changes on site.

[George Pazin]

Does anyone have any examples of courses that are either:

- wonderfully routed but sorely lacking on the detail side

or

- poorly routed but amazingly thoughtful on the detail work?

Seems almost impossible that a designer would do one without deep thinking about the other.

Just wonderin'...

[DMoriarty]

I thought some of you might not have seen Charles Blair Macdonald's June 29, 1910 letter to Merion.  (According to what  Mike Cirba recently posted.)

_____________________________________________________________________
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

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.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald
_______________________________________

When I read this, I cannot help but think that Macdonald and Whigham may already have had a pretty good idea of at least some of the golf holes they envisioned for the property, and they may have even had a rough routing in mind.   As CBM wrote, while they could not be sure it would fit without a contour map, M&W thought that a first class 6000 yard course would fit on the property, provided Merion acquired a bit more land by the clubhouse (presumably the land behind the clubhouse used for part of the original 12th hole and the 12th and 13th greens.)    How could they have written this if they didn't have at least some idea of the routing and golf holes?   

But I am not a golf course designer, and I am curious, for those of you more familiar with the process, what do you think?   

Thanks.

P.S.  I should mention that another designer, H.H. Barker, had already gone over the property and come up with a rough plan for the lay out, but I do not think we know for certain whether or not CBM was given a copy of that plan.   

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I've written letters like that without having done a complete routing, much less the final routing.  The prescription for what lengths of holes to have is boilerplate stuff, not based on a routing plan.

[DMoriarty]

David:

I've written letters like that without having done a complete routing, much less the final routing.  The prescription for what lengths of holes to have is boilerplate stuff, not based on a routing plan.

Tom,   Understood.  Thanks for chiming in. 

The part that struck me wasn't really the list of hole lengths, but rather that, although the development company controlled around 300 contiguous acres, CBM suggested that Merion try to purchase an additional small parcel not controlled by the development company.  My thought was that he may have had something in mind when he suggested this addition.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think M&W were most concerned that the total acreage they were considering was not large enough for the somewhat pre-fab (at least in terms of hole lengths) 6,000 yard course they originally recommended.

They also weren't considering the entire 300 acres, but 117 acres that were in an L-shape on both sides of Ardmore Avenue if my understanding is correct.

Purchasing the 3 acres in question would seem to make sense on a few levels;

It was adjacent to the clubhouse and would force a close boundary right next to the clubhouse if they weren't aquired.

Purchase of same would create wider "connective tissue" right where the two sides of the course connected at the road.

There was a lovely stream running through that part of the property.

It would allow the course to run to a more "natural" boundary, that of the rail tracks, which would also ease ingress egress to the clubhouse.

It would raise total acreage from 117 to 120, which is probably roughly what M&W thought was necessary for a 6000 yard course in general terms.

[Niall C]

Niall:

In nearly all cases, when I do a routing plan for a course I also draw golf holes complete with bunkers on the plan ... mostly to give it some life, because the people who will be looking at the plan are probably not adept at reading contour maps.

In general I would guess that something like 50% of the bunkers on those initial routing maps winds up in the same position on the finished course.  We change the rest in the field because we have spent a lot more time on site and have refined our ideas more -- and also because there are more people involved in the process then and everyone wants to add their .02 cents.

Thanks Tom,

On the basis that a lot of your intial routing bunkers actually got built, would it be fair to say that the routing had a bearing on the placement of these bunkers or am I reading to much into what you say. I'm thinking here of what I might think of as natural bunker sites eg bunkers built into a bank or rise, or located at dog-legs etc.

I'm not sure I can make any direct comparison as to how you work compared to how I think the old guys might have done it given the different design/construct methods but I am interested as to whether the basic routing suggests to you how the hole might look. I'm not saying that the routing dictates what you do but that just like there may be natural green sites, could there be natural bunker sites ?

Niall

[DMoriarty]

I have a question:

In June 1910, what was the land that HG Lloyd proposed to buy?

Was it just the land upon which Merion now sits?

Or was it the entire property?

My instinct tells me it was the latter, not the former, but I just don't remember.

In Summer 1910 Merion was looking to buy the land for the golf course, not the entire 300+ acre tract controlled by the development company.   Based on Macdonald's suggestion, Merion's Site Committee recommended that Merion purchase nearly 120 acres for their purposes, but the extra 3 acres behind  the clubhouse was controlled by the Railroad, not the development company, and so the purchase was to be only for 117 acres. 

According to Mike, Macdonald suggested the extra acres simply because he wanted to get the total up to around 120, which is roughly what he thought was necessary for a "somewhat pre-fab" 6000 yard golf course. (Give us a break with the loaded descriptions, Mike.)

But here is the rub.  The development company controlled the land west of current course, and Golf House Rd. had not yet been built, so it was basically all just one big chunk of land.   Had they simply needed acreage they could easily have gone west to total up to 120 acres!   Also, the selection seems a bit odd because clubhouse separated some of the land Macdonald recommended from the rest of the land for the course.  (According to old reports, golfers had to walk around or through the clubhouse (stopping for a drink on the way) to get from the 13th green to the 14th tee. )

So it seems like when Macdonald suggested that particular land, he must have had something else in mind than just adding acres.   Whether he just liked the features or saw golf holes is debatable, but it is easy to imagine him noticing the greensite that became the green for the short 13th. 

___________________________

I really do not want to debate Merion here again.  But since this is a thread about what Macdonald could have done while on site,  I am very curious as to why he might have suggested to Merion that they add the land (just short of 3 acres) behind the clubhouse.   I well know what Mike and TEPaul think, but I was hoping to hear from a few others, preferably those who have done this sort of thing.

Tom D., any ideas what he might have been thinking when he suggested that particular land?   Anyone else?

Thanks.



________________________________________

WARNING:  The stuff below this line is pretty tangential to what this thread is about, but I thought Shivas might like some clarification on some of the messed up land transaction stuff.   I wouldn't recommend continuing.

Dave, I noticed you asked what land Lloyd had proposed buying.  I think at this point (and ultimately,) Merion was the potential buyer, not Lloyd.   The transaction ended up being pretty complicated by the time it actually got done.   I haven't gone back to look at my limited documents, but off the top of my head, Merion was to buy the land from the development company (via a corp set up for this purpose.) Lloyd and other members could buy newly issued stock in the development company, close to 1/2 the total equity. (I suspect the developers needed the $ to exercise options and develop the land.)  There were reportedly some financial difficulties, and what ultimately happened was that the deed on some of the land controlled by the development company  close to 1/2 I think) went to Lloyd.  Then after some months the 117 acres of golf course land went to Merion (via the dummy corp.) for the golf course. 

I know TEPaul has been fond of stating that Lloyd swooped in and bought everything, but I suspect that this is a bit misleading.   Lloyd did end up holding the deed on a large chunk of the land for a matter of some months, but I suspect that he was essentially bridging the deal (maybe for both sides while the parties scrambled to raise money and/or exercise options) until everyone was ready to fulfill their various obligations to each other.  If we ever see the documents I think we'll find that Lloyd was holding the deed as collateral or security or escrow, or some such term you transactional attorneys make up.   

[TEPaul]

Shivas:


Lloyd's participation in all this is most interesting. I'll tell you more about it later. In the meantime, I'm going over to Merion for lunch with a young financial whizzz who just bought one of those big houses to the west and wants to know more about all this real estate history. What Lloyd did was done for a number of interconnecting reasons including the fact that at that time he was just beginning to establish his own enormous estate right in around there that would become the pretty famous 75 acre Allgate estate, famous in American Garden Club circles.

But basically Lloyd bought the 140 acre Johnson Farm of which Merion's initial 117 acres was a part. Lloyd's dealings and arrangement with the Haverford Development Co. and the remainder of their 338 acre tract in there is more complicated.

In my opinion, if it wasn't for Lloyd this entire thing probably wouldn't have happened the way it did and it may not have happened at all if not for Horatio Gates Lloyd.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()