[JESII]

Jeff,

I believe the three RR acres get the property to 123.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, but on Nov. 15, 1910 when the committee took the plan to a vote of the members, they were targeting 120 - 117 from HDC and 3 from the RR.  That they had to buy an additional 3 acres from HDC (later not paid for, for reasons unexplained) took the total land purchase to 123 acres.

Not busting your chops or anything, but I am getting frustrated at various parties who keep bringing up points that have been covered, explained and are fairly obvious.  I guess I am just getting tired of this whole thing now.  It just seems we aren't going to get everyone to agree to anything, barring a new document.

Has anyone considered a seance?  At this point, I would prefer to discuss some other topic that no one seems to understand and can never figure out rather than rehash MCC again.

Hey, lets talk about women!  We can't figure them out and never will, either!

[JESII]

I'm not seeing how that's difficult to understand?

Mike,

What's difficult for me to understand is why you think the historic property boundaries of the Johnson Farm were the extent of what they could look at for golf...the July 1 report says the syndicate owned outright, or had an option on, 300 acres and wanted to sell some of it for a golf course...nothing in there about which specific portion...if the higher ground were more interesting for golf I think they would have used that...

The way you're forcing this process into the post November 1910 timeframe is a bit bizarre...it seems you're overlooking some obvious issues that would support the other side purely because the Land Plan date seems to be a line of demarcation of who would get the credit, CBM or Wilson whereas I think it makes sense to take all these guys at their word, that Wilson did the bulk of the work on the golf course and the technical detail of when the committee was formed or began writing letters needed to follow the legal timeline you and Tom have been laying out.

[JESII]

Jeff,

First off, no need to worry about busting my chops. I appreciate your involvement in this discussion, as your perspective is clearly an asset.

Maybe I just don't understand this post...

It merely suggests that the other three acres were to come from the RR property.

Bryan was pointing out that in July 1910 they wanted 120 acres and in November they only needed 117 ...do you think they knew then that they wouldn't have to pay for the railroad land in November 1910?

Also, not to bust your chops, but a few days ago you suggested that the Cuyler letter was the first evidence of Merion thinking to use a movable boundary and I asked if the "Approximate Road" marking on the 11/15/1910 Plan wasn't proof that they had thought of it sooner...I don't think you responded...any thoughts?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Sullivan,

I think the only reasons that the one area was the flexible boundary were:

It was decided to use all land south of Ardmore for golf.
It was predetermined that the Johnson Farm House was going to be the cluhouse, keeping the golf course down there hugging the creek.
I doubt the concept of integrating golf and housing was established then (putting golf in front yards, rather than back yards was the order of the day back then) so MCC was contemplated as a basic core course, not one that would be strung out between houses.

Jeff,

Thanks for yet again delineating the reasons why that section of the Johnson Farm made perfectly logical sense for golf...

I would only add that they wanted the northeastern section of the Johnson Farm for access to the major transportation of the day - TRAINS.

Early articles mentioned that the course would be along two railroad stops, one down near the clubhouse and the other up by College Avenue.

Bryan's metes and bounds even shows us that Merion purchased a thin strip running all the way up to College Avenue even after the course was finally configured, which we can safely assume simply guaranteed ingress and egrees.  At 11 feet wide, I'm sure it wasn't to be used for golf.

I'd also add that M&W thought much could be made of the quarry, which makes it doublly ridiculous that they would purposefully truncate the property at only 65 yards north of the quarry when they had land at their disposal running another 400 yards north.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Given all the people at HDC and MCC with high level railroad connections, I do think the felt pretty good about getting that 3 acres, even with no formal agreement in place.

If I wrote that about the Culyer letter, then I was wrong in it being the "first thought" of it.  Obvioulsy they had the idea earlier.
 
I have always felt that 11.10.1910  plan was drawn up quickly right after Lloyd and Connell reached their basic understanding and it was time to go to the members for a vote.  I would date the acceleration of those talks to the time period from the October finalization of the Dallas Estate purchase.

I speculate that they decided sometime between CBM’s report (written June 29 and mailed) that the Dallas Estate was desirable and staredt the process of engaging a third party to inquire about it.  Negotiations ensue for about 4-8 weeks until the “purchase” is announced in August. I am not sure exactly why it took from August to October to finalize that, but there, things just take time to cross t’s and dot “I’s”.

I think if we went back and looked at some mundane things we could figure out why the entire land south of Ardmore was decided to be used for golf in this time period.  While we have spent a few years wondering about the routings, et al, it could just as well be that that newfangled electricity or perhaps the city water or sewer lines made it easier and or cheaper to develop north of Ardmore at that time because they came from that direction, whereas south of Ardmore golf wouldn require that.

However that was decided, it left Golf House Road as the only flexible boundary between the two entities. I sincerely doubt that the idea of stringing golf course among housing wasn't seriously considered at that time because it wasn't common then, about 13 holes were going to fit south of Ardmore as previously decided, and the clubhouse location had been decided.  They also knew from CBM that they wanted to use the Quarry.

When you take those three things together, its pretty apparent that to me (and most likely them) that there would be little reason to run the golf holes anywhere north of the old Johnson farm property line.  So, the entire 330 acres wasn't really considered.

And, since south of Ardmore accounted for about 70 acres of the proposed 117, they merely took the 50 or so acres that was encompassed by that approximate road.  Since all land south of Ardmore was going for golf, there was no need to fiddle with those boundaries.

[Niall C]

Jeff

Further to your thoughts on locating the golf course, would it not be fair to go further and say that the club didn't really get thye option of the land north of Ardmore as the developer would be dictating, as best it could, where the housing went and where the golf course went. I'm finding it strange that people aren't picking up on the fact that this is a real estate development the most important element of which is the housing.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

You make a good point.  While we focus on the routing, etc. it was a real estate development and the land offer came with some strings.  While offered 100 or whatever acres, we cannot assume that Connell offered a total cart blanche.  He wanted them to put it on land that was less useful for his puproses. (including the quarry and floodplain land along the creek)

In addition to the utility issue I mentioned earlier, I am quite sure that if MCC had come back with a routing that left HDC with a lot of unusable parcels and/or a layout that forced HDC into building more roads and sewers, etc. than was absolutely necessary that it would have been shot down quickly. 

And, even today, the economics work out such that the smaller the parcel (and 330 acres is a small parcel for golf and housing) the more likely it is for a core cousre to work the best.  Once you get to 500 acres, then stringing it out works best for real estate yield.  They were smart guys, and most of their decisions were wise ones. Just look at the results!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

You were a slacker.  I was hoping for all 18 holes to be laid out according to CBM's list of lengths.  I assume you're saying by implication that the first thirteen holes were laid out over both the Johnson and Dallas properties.  I'd agree with your conclusions in the last paragraph.  

Now, IF Francis recollected the swap dimensions accurately and IF we accepted that the land at the north end of the Johnson property wasn't initially part of the golf course property so that Francis could swap for it, THEN, based on your routing we can see how he felt it would be difficult to fit the last five holes in with any resemblance to a championship course.

Bryan,

The problem is that Francis clearly did NOT reflect exactly what happened 40 years later.   What was he going to say for a brief article in the US Open program...?  "Well, we took a piece of land running curvilnearly along our working boundary, and widened it along the length of over 400 yards by about on average 25 yards, and to compensate for that we had some land across the street from the clubhouse that we gave back that was about six acres, but there was more acreage there, and also north of where we wanted to place the 15th green/16th tee that we couldn't use, and also needed some more land behind the 1st green that actually crossed a bit outside the Johnson Farm land property..."    

The problem is that both you and Jim are trying to put a square peg in a round hole by insisting that Francis 40 years later HAD to mean that they swapped for the whole triangle.  He simply meant they needed to widen the area up there to 130 yards wide to make everything fit.

The more facts we learn, the clearer it becomes that any literal interpretation of Francis leads to absolutely preposterous results.

What are those facts;

1) The first 13 holes had been routed.

2) There was land west of the present course along GHR of no use to any golf plans. (now covered by fine homes)

3) For a literal interpretation of Francis to be true, they would have been routing on a Johnson Farm truncated in the north at the Haverford College boundary, liekly giving them 108.5 acres of Johnson Farm + 21.1 acres of Dallas Estate for a total purchase of 129.6 + 3 acres railroad land = 132.6 acres total.

This drawing should help to illustrate;




The red bounded section marked "1"  shows the areas where the first 13 holes had already been routed.  

The yellow marked "2"  is the boundary of the quarry, unusable for tees, fairways, and greens.

The blue bounded section is the northwestern boundary of the Johnson Farm.  The large area marked "3" across from the clubhouse would be the supposed land west of the present course "that was not used for any golf layout".

The green boundary makred "4" is the area that they would have supposedly been trying to fit the five finishing holes of their championshp course into, if we take Francis to the letter of his remarks rather than the spirit of them.

The orange is a crudely drawn location of the "approximate road" as seen on the November 1910 Land Plan.  

 
I think I understand why you were trying to get Jeff to do a routing on this land because you're trying to see if there was enough here for an 18 hole golf course.  You're basically trying to see if a professional architect could make it work.  

The problem is that we already know that 13 holes were pre-configured and had already used up a par three on the back nine.

So, in reality, what you should be asking Jeff or anyone to attempt is to build out the Final Five Holes of their championship course on the land encircled in green, because according to the literal interpretation of the Francis theory, that is all that would be left!    

We also know already that for some crazy reason (which makes no sense given the limited overall property), the land west marked as "3" was not part of any golf plan?!    

Bryan and Jim...seriously...how would that make any sense at all if the property ended north at Haverford College?   They would have had to have tried to use this land for golf, wouldn't they?!?

Otherwise, you're arguing that they went ahead and routed the first 13 holes all the while knowing that they didn't have nearly enough land to work with north of the clubhouse.  That would have been insane!  

Why wouldn't they have used the entire 132 acres at their disposal to route the course??  

For a literal interpretation of the Francis Swap to be true, they would have THEN swapped for what we know is 4.8 acres of land (the "triangle") up by 15green/16tee (making the overall course now 137.4), but would have given up in return OVER SEVENTEEN ACRES IN RETURN across from the clubhouse that for some insane unexplainable reason was supposedly somehow deemed as "not part of any golf layout"!!  

Wouldn't it make much more sense for Francis to simply be talking about the overall width he needed to create up there the by going beyond the "working boundary" to the west (west of the orange line) along 14 & 15 so that those holes fit, and then giving back acreage down below where it bowed in anyway (east of the orange line) by the clubhouse to keep similar acreage for real estate?
  

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Of course that wouldn't work well which is simply more evidence that the Francis Swap almost certainly never happened in the way David suggests and which you seem to as well.  I'm just trying to find a way to accept literally what Francis said happened, regardless of what you think David has suggested.  Assuming that the northern acreage wasn't part of the initial plan does two things for me:  it allows me to understand why he would say it was difficult to fit in the last 5 holes; and secondly, it allows me to accept that he said he swapped to get 130 x 190 yards up there, because it wasn't initially part of the acreage.Brian, with all due respect, I think that's where you're making your mistake.   We already know that the last five holes didn't fit in the Land Plan.   Your overlays made that incredibly and painfully obvious!   It WAS difficult to fit in the last five holes...in fact, it was impossible given the narrow corridor the Land Plan working boundary was set, which is why they needed the swap.   And, he did swap to get the 130x190 section of land, only he was starting with 100x327, not zero.   The reason no other solution makes any sense is because you and Jim are trying to stick with a literal interpretation of Francis, which I believe was simply anecdotal simplification 40 years later.

The whole point of creating a routing is to do it on.the full 119 acres of Johnson Farm that both Barker and Mac saw on their site visit in June 1910.  How do you know what Barker and CBM saw?  Why not the full Johnson Farm or the Connor Estate?Because we know that 1) In July 1910, the only land OWNED by HDC was the Johnson Farm.   The narrow strip of that farmland going west was too narrow for golf, but the northeastern and southern sections which we know were utilized nets out at 119 acres, or "nearly 120 acres" as the July report said would be needed.   If they were looking at the Johnson Farm south of Haverford College, plus the Dallas Estate, as you seem to be contending, they would have a total of 129.6 acres to work with, plus 3 acres of rail land for 132.6 acres, and then still needed 4.8 of the triangle?!!?  

There is absolutely no evidence or other reason to believe that the property was subdivided below College ave at that time and the property was described in club docs and news articles as running north to College.  No doubt the property ran up to College, and even beyond into the Connor Estate.  But, equally there is no evidence of where exactly the 100 acres or whatever was required were, or even where the exact boundaries of the 117 acres were. The "100 acres" is meaningless.   We know from the first letter that they were talking about needing nearly 120 acres.   The Connor Estate is also meaningless.   There is no evidence that it was never considered, nor was it owned by HDC in July 1910 when they were originally discussing this.   Besides Bryan...why would they have cut out a potential of another 250 yards of golf course facing homefronts along their approximate road to harshly and arbitrarily create a right-angle straight cut across the golf course at the Haverford College line?!   Why would they have cut their access to transportation north with some arbitrary straight line right angle boundary?   Why would they draw all of their roads as curving and then create a harsh straight line "dead end" on the northern part of the property?

I think it also goes to my long held contention here that it would have been ridiculous for them to only secure land 65 yards beyond the quarry, particularly since more was available, part of the historic property, and M+W recommended that much could be made of the quarry.   I've lost track of where this 65 yards north of the quarry thing comes from since I'm not able to see the bounds of the quarry from 1910.  Nevertheless, are you saying that Francis was "ridiculous" to say that he swapped for the land beyond 65 yards north of the quarry?  If we take him literally at his word that's exactly what they did.Brian, you do know where the boundary was and the quarry dimensions haven't changed.   The difference between Haverford College boundary and the end of the quarry is 65 yards.  Francis was not "ridiculous", he was summarizing the results of what he did anecdotally 40 years later.  



I see you've done two routings.  I kind of noticed the X routing in the first attempt.  In the second, I'm impressed with your second hole.  Looks like a litigation magnet hole.  I noticed that you managed to get not two, but three holes into the area north of the Dallas Estate, where Jeff basically said it wasn't wide enough.  I think that to get 110 yards out of the par 3 you'd have to have one foot on the pavement.   .  And, of course you stepped outside the bounds of my mind exercise by using the northern 10.5 acres.

I would draw the conclusion that it was damn near impossible to get the CBM course on the section of the Johnson Farm that I designated.  I think the Dallas Estate was part of the early planning.Bryan, I not only routed a course on the acreage of the Johnson Farm but did one significantly longer by 500 yards than the mythical 6000 yard routing M&W recommended.   I think you're being a little persnickety about my crude drawing.   If you look at the land under question where I did a drawing in free-hand for the second hole, there is plenty of room.   I just drew it very poorly.   There are plenty of other places where I could have done it if that didn't work, including breaking up the 15th into a par 3 and four, or I could just move the 1st tee to where it is today, or whatever.   The point is very simple and indisputable, frankly;  Both Barker and  M&W could have fit a golf course onto the 119 acres of the Johnson Land.   I did it in two hours.

[Bryan Izatt]

Yes, but on Nov. 15, 1910 when the committee took the plan to a vote of the members, they were targeting 120 - 117 from HDC and 3 from the RR.  That they had to buy an additional 3 acres from HDC (later not paid for, for reasons unexplained) took the total land purchase to 123 acres.

Not busting your chops or anything, but I am getting frustrated at various parties who keep bringing up points that have been covered, explained and are fairly obvious.  I guess I am just getting tired of this whole thing now.  It just seems we aren't going to get everyone to agree to anything, barring a new document.

Has anyone considered a seance?  At this point, I would prefer to discuss some other topic that no one seems to understand and can never figure out rather than rehash MCC again.

Hey, lets talk about women!  We can't figure them out and never will, either!

Jeff,

Sorry for your frustration.  But, neither the land plan nor the letter refer to the the RR land, so I don't understand how you can say that they were targeted in November to make up the 117 to 120 acres.  Also, I thought that we collectively had agreed that the 3 acre purchase minuted in April 1911 was to buy the RR land (which ended up leased instead) and was not a purchase of 3 acres from HDC. My frustration is that things I thought were agreed keep popping back up.

My question remains.  Doesn't 117 acres sound fairly precise and suggest that some routing planning had been done by that point?

[Mike_Cirba]

Another thing I find perplexing about the acreages bandied about is, on July 1, 1910:

1) it is reported that Connell offered 100 acres ( a nice round number), or whatever would be required ......

2) and, in the next paragraph the Committee says it is probable that nearly 120 acres (another round number) would be required.


By November 15, 1910 they have a deal done to secure 117 acres, not a round number, but in fact, seemingly precise to the acre.  It's not 116 or 118, it's precisely 117.

Does that not suggest that in those intervening 4.5 months that someone did some more planning of the layout of the course.  How else would they have gotten from a round 120 acres to a precise 117 acres?  Of course, then they got it wrong and had to increase it back to a precise 120.01 acres on July 26, 1911.  

Very simple, Bryan.

They figured they'd need around 120 acres.

They knew from July that it made sense to aquire the 3 acres railroad land.

That left 117 acres that they thought they'd need to purchase.

They couldn't make that work in the northern section...they needed 3 more acres outside the approximate land  boundary west of the "approximate road".   Thus, the Francis Swap.

Net = 120 acres purchase, 3 acres leased for a total of 123.

You're making this more complicated than it was.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

The 3 acres they were going to purchase in April was NOT the railroad land.   It was the 3 acres that fell outside the approximate road drawing and thus outside the agreed working boundary that Lloyd and Connell had drawn up.

The railroad would not have charged them $2500 an acre for $7,500 to buy but leased in perpetuity for $1 a year.

$2500 an acre was the price of HDC real estate land at the time.

I don't know who ate that cost, but that's what it was.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

What Mike said. I don't recall he or I agreeing that the railroad land was the 3 acre purchase. It couldn't have been since, well, it wasn't purchased until the 1960's. 

TePaul informed us that many MCC members were also big time in the railroads.  Its really easy to surmise that they planned on getting that land by lease or purchase.  Its easy to surmise that the lease was a real sweetheart deal that no one but a railroad executive who was a member at MCC could negotiate.

Mike,

In fact, my quick routing (call me quarter hour Brauer) did basically use your green parcel, although I extended it to the Nov 15 road rather than the final road you seem to show. Its still too narrow.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

You were a slacker.  I was hoping for all 18 holes to be laid out according to CBM's list of lengths.  I assume you're saying by implication that the first thirteen holes were laid out over both the Johnson and Dallas properties.  I'd agree with your conclusions in the last paragraph.  

Now, IF Francis recollected the swap dimensions accurately and IF we accepted that the land at the north end of the Johnson property wasn't initially part of the golf course property so that Francis could swap for it, THEN, based on your routing we can see how he felt it would be difficult to fit the last five holes in with any resemblance to a championship course.

Bryan,

The problem is that Francis clearly did NOT reflect exactly what happened 40 years later.   You can say this as many times as you want, but it does not make it true.  You can only speculate that Francis was a doddering old man who mistated what happened.  What was he going to say for a brief article in the US Open program...?  "Well, we took a piece of land running curvilnearly along our working boundary, and widened it along the length of over 400 yards by about on average 25 yards, and to compensate for that we had some land across the street from the clubhouse that we gave back that was about six acres, but there was more acreage there, and also north of where we wanted to place the 15th green/16th tee that we couldn't use, and also needed some more land behind the 1st green that actually crossed a bit outside the Johnson Farm land property..."       He could have said:  "My greatest contribution was to suggest realignment of the property boundaries along what are now the 14th, 15th, and 16th holes so that we could fit those holes in the property that we had."   But, he didn't, he said that he swapped for 130 x 190 yards.

The problem is that both you and Jim are trying to put a square peg in a round hole by insisting that Francis 40 years later HAD to mean that they swapped for the whole triangle.  He simply meant they needed to widen the area up there to 130 yards wide to make everything fit.  Truth is that it is simpler to accept a literal interpretation than to interpret what he must have meant.  I think we're dead on this issue.  We'll agree to disagree until more information comes to light.

The more facts we learn, the clearer it becomes that any literal interpretation of Francis leads to absolutely preposterous results.

What are those facts;

1) The first 13 holes had been routed.

2) There was land west of the present course along GHR of no use to any golf plans. (now covered by fine homes)

3) For a literal interpretation of Francis to be true, they would have been routing on a Johnson Farm truncated in the north at the Haverford College boundary, liekly giving them 108.5 acres of Johnson Farm + 21.1 acres of Dallas Estate for a total purchase of 129.6 + 3 acres railroad land = 132.6 acres total.

This drawing should help to illustrate;




The red bounded section marked "1"  shows the areas where the first 13 holes had already been routed.  

The yellow marked "2"  is the boundary of the quarry, unusable for tees, fairways, and greens.

The blue bounded section is the northwestern boundary of the Johnson Farm.  The large area marked "3" across from the clubhouse would be the supposed land west of the present course "that was not used for any golf layout".

The green boundary makred "4" is the area that they would have supposedly been trying to fit the five finishing holes of their championshp course into, if we take Francis to the letter of his remarks rather than the spirit of them.

The orange is a crudely drawn location of the "approximate road" as seen on the November 1910 Land Plan.  

The description and numbering above doesn't match the drawing.

I understand what you've laid out, but I don't understand why these facts make taking a literal interpretation of Francis' words absolutely preposterous.


I think I understand why you were trying to get Jeff to do a routing on this land because you're trying to see if there was enough here for an 18 hole golf course.  You're basically trying to see if a professional architect could make it work.   Yes. 

The problem is that we already know that 13 holes were pre-configured and had already used up a par three on the back nine.  Why is that a problem?

So, in reality, what you should be asking Jeff or anyone to attempt is to build out the Final Five Holes of their championship course on the land encircled in green, because according to the literal interpretation of the Francis theory, that is all that would be left!    

And, that's what Jeff did a few posts back.  He said he could squeeze them in with narrow corridors, but there would have been no room for maintenance facilities.

We also know already that for some crazy reason (which makes no sense given the limited overall property), the land west marked as "2" was not part of any golf plan?!        Beats me.  I thought maybe those of you who have seen that land might be able to say why it doesn't look like golf land - too hilly; too flat.  Maybe Connell said they couldn't have it.

Bryan and Jim...seriously...how would that make any sense at all if the property ended north at Haverford College?   They would have had to have tried to use this land for golf, wouldn't they?!?  I've seen nothing that indicates why they focused in on what they did.  They had the Connor Estate they could have used.  They apparently had options on other land they might have used.  That's the crux of the problem, why did they choose the 117 acres they did, and what were those 117 acres.

Otherwise, you're arguing that they went ahead and routed the first 13 holes all the while knowing that they didn't have nearly enough land to work with north of the clubhouse.  That would have been insane!  

How would you route a golf course?  Would you start at the clubhouse and work sequentially out from number 1 on?  I've never routed a course, nor am I able to channel Wilson, CBM, Barker or anybody else who might have done it at the time. 

Maybe it was insane to have satisfactorily routed the first 13 holes and then figured out they didn't have enough room for the last five, but that's what Francis said they did - and regardless of whether you take Francis literally or believe that he meant they adjusted the boundary.  They had 13 holes laid out and then couldn't fit the last 5 in.  Or, would you like to interpret that too.  What do you think he really meant?

Why wouldn't they have used the entire 132 acres at their disposal to route the course??  

For a literal interpretation of the Francis Swap to be true, they would have THEN swapped for what we know is 4.8 acres of land (the "triangle") up by 15green/16tee (making the overall course now 137.4), but would have given up in return OVER SEVENTEEN ACRES IN RETURN across from the clubhouse that for some insane unexplainable reason was supposedly somehow deemed as "not part of any golf layout"!!  

I don't know what their insane reason was, but indisputably they did "give up" that land.

Wouldn't it make much more sense for Francis to simply be talking about the overall width he needed to create up there the by going beyond the "working boundary" to the west (west of the orange line) along 14 & 15 so that those holes fit, and then giving back acreage down below where it bowed in anyway (east of the orange line) by the clubhouse to keep similar acreage for real estate?

It would make sense if we understood that there was a working boundary and that it was where the approximate road was and that Francis had a senior moment when he was recollecting what his contribution was.  I think we need some additional documentary proof of the boundaries of the 117 acres to be able to reach a definitive conclusion.  You can hang on to your interpretation until then, and I'll stick to Francis' words.
  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

The 3 acres they were going to purchase in April was NOT the railroad land.   It was the 3 acres that fell outside the approximate road drawing and thus outside the agreed working boundary that Lloyd and Connell had drawn up.  How do you KNOW that?



The railroad would not have charged them $2500 an acre for $7,500 to buy but leased in perpetuity for $1 a year.

$2500 an acre was the price of HDC real estate land at the time.  How do you KNOW that?  You asked me some posts ago what the price of HDC real estate was.  Have you now found out?  How?

So, you're saying that they proposed to buy 3 acres from HDC.  There is no record of such a purchase actually happening.  And, in April Lloyd on behalf of MCC owned the 161 acres of Johnson and Dallas land, so if they were buying it from HDC then it must have been outside of the Johnson/Dallas tracts.  Is that what you're saying, that they bought 3 acres from HDC that was outside the Johnson/Dallas tract? 

I don't know who ate that cost, but that's what it was.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

What Mike said. I don't recall he or I agreeing that the railroad land was the 3 acre purchase. It couldn't have been since, well, it wasn't purchased until the 1960's. 

TePaul informed us that many MCC members were also big time in the railroads.  Its really easy to surmise that they planned on getting that land by lease or purchase.  Its easy to surmise that the lease was a real sweetheart deal that no one but a railroad executive who was a member at MCC could negotiate.

Mike,

In fact, my quick routing (call me quarter hour Brauer) did basically use your green parcel, although I extended it to the Nov 15 road rather than the final road you seem to show. Its still too narrow.

OK, I guess I misunderstood the understanding I thought that was reached on the RR land.  My interpretation, for whatever it is worth is that the Board minutes in April 1911 indicated an intent to purchase the 3 acres of RR land for $7,500.  By the next month they had negotiated a sweet-heart lease arrangement for the land in perpetuity for $1 a year and payment of the taxes and maintenance of the property.  Consequently they didn't action the purchase RR land until much later.  Interpretation on my part, but perfectly logical (in my alledged mind   ) and not in conflict with any other documentation.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

In fact, my quick routing (call me quarter hour Brauer) did basically use your green parcel, although I extended it to the Nov 15 road rather than the final road you seem to show. Its still too narrow.

Jeff,

Except in your routing example you cheated and used "land west of today's course that was not part of any golf layout.".  

Even with using the extra land that Francis told us they weren't using you STILL couldn't fit those five championship finishing holes into the land that was left if you take Francis literally!!  

Slacker!!    


There is no way they would have routed 13 holes if all they had left was that little sliver around the quarry.   They would have had to have been certifiably insane.

Espeically with 17 acres of gently rolling land across from the clubhouse that they had supposedly somehow deemed "not part of any golf layout".

The literal interpretation of Francis's words makes no sense under any realistic scenario, as you know.

[Mike_Cirba]

The problem is that both you and Jim are trying to put a square peg in a round hole by insisting that Francis 40 years later HAD to mean that they swapped for the whole triangle.  He simply meant they needed to widen the area up there to 130 yards wide to make everything fit.  Truth is that it is simpler to accept a literal interpretation than to interpret what he must have meant.  I think we're dead on this issue.  We'll agree to disagree until more information comes to light.Bryan, I don't think Francis was addled, and I think he had a good memory.  I just think he tried to sum up the net result.   I agree that we'll agree to disagree.


I understand what you've laid out, but I don't understand why these facts make taking a literal interpretation of Francis' words absolutely preposterous.  It's simple math, Bryan.

If we give the Committee all of the land north of the club house out to the historical western boundary of Johnson Farm, but truncated at Haverford College as you suggest Francis had to mean, that give us a total of roughly 1545 ft x 1050 ft, or 37.2 acres.

Doesn't sound too bad for five holes, right?

Only we know that Francis said that they weren't going to use the land west of GHR for any golf layout, so the area west of GHR and north of the clubhouse is slightly over half the area, or roughly 9 acres, so we're down to 28.2 acres.

Then, we have the quarry, which was unusable for fairways, greens, or tees.

The quarry measures out roughly at 540 ft x 450 ft, or another 5.5 acres, leaving a total of 22.7 acres to build the final five holes of their championship course, and only one of them can be a par three!   It's an exercise in futility, and if I took you out on the property tomorrow you could see instantly that it could never have worked, not even on paper!  

There is no way they would have routed 13 holes knowing that they only had 22.7 acres left to build the final five holes!!

Or said another way, it's basically like trying to cram five finishing holes into the Dallas Estate!     


So, in reality, what you should be asking Jeff or anyone to attempt is to build out the Final Five Holes of their championship course on the land encircled in green, because according to the literal interpretation of the Francis theory, that is all that would be left!    

And, that's what Jeff did a few posts back.  He said he could squeeze them in with narrow corridors, but there would have been no room for maintenance facilities.No, he accidentlally cheated, because he used the land west of GHR down near the clubhouse that Francis told us wasn't part of any golf layout!   There was NO way for them to even come close to five hole if the literal interpretation of Francis holds true...probably not even four of any length, value, and or strategic interest as closing holes.


We also know already that for some crazy reason (which makes no sense given the limited overall property), the land west marked as "2" was not part of any golf plan?!       Beats me.  I thought maybe those of you who have seen that land might be able to say why it doesn't look like golf land - too hilly; too flat.  Maybe Connell said they couldn't have it. Bryan, the land is unremarkable, mostly flattish and gently sloping like today's holes 1 and 14 that it parallels.   Connell did say they could have it...Francis said they already owned (secured) it, but that it wasn't part of any golf course layout.   It is simply impossible that they would have had 17 acres total there, as the Francis Literal interpretation goes, and not have been able to use it for any golf layout.   Impossible.


I've seen nothing that indicates why they focused in on what they did.  They had the Connor Estate they could have used.  They apparently had options on other land they might have used.  That's the crux of the problem, why did they choose the 117 acres they did, and what were those 117 acres. I don't see any problem...not any longer.   They had the 119 acres of the Johnson Farm from July 1910 under consdieration plus the 3 acres railroad land.   Once the Dallas Estate was also available I'm sure they decided that might work betterl for them if they could incorporate it as part of the course below Ardmore Avenue because it was a natural extension of land they already owned down there.   Only that then gave them nearly 140 acres...way too much for golf.

A working boundary was negotiated between Lloyd and Connell and drawn between real estate and proposed golf course land in the form of a curving, approximate road in that northeastern section of the Johnson Farm, with the idea that the boundary would be finalized after the course was routed with the idea that the golf course would ideally need about 117 acres (with the 3 RR acres for the magical 120), except because of the width of the quarry, it didn't work out that way...Francis recognized they needed an extra three acres west of that working boundary (that wasn't part of the original proposed agreement, which is why he went to Lloyd, who agreed to make it happen), making the total final purchase for 120.1 + the 3 acres RR land for the 123 total they opened with.


It would make sense if we understood that there was a working boundary and that it was where the approximate road was and that Francis had a senior moment when he was recollecting what his contribution was.  I think we need some additional documentary proof of the boundaries of the 117 acres to be able to reach a definitive conclusion.  You can hang on to your interpretation until then, and I'll stick to Francis' words. I don't think Francis had a senior moment...i think he was just trying to simplify that he created enough width to get those two holes in there in basic terms his reader would understand.   He had no idea what a mess he was creating!!    
  

[Mike_Cirba]

One other complete red herring of a hoax that I need to dispel while I think of it is this silly notion postulated by Patrick that all this time was wasted...seven months of no activity, blah, blah, blah...   Cry me a river!  

The fact is from the time that the property was first brought to the club's attention seriously in June of 1910, it took all of 27 months to secure the land, negotiate the deal, route and plan the golf course, build and seed and grow in the golf course, with opening on September 14, 1912.

Let's compare that with another famous case where land was optioned, and committees were formed, shall we?

At NGLA, Macdonald began looking at his eventual land purchase as early as Spring, 1906.

By December of that year he optioned just over 210 acres, figuring he'd need about 110 for the golf course and could use the rest to build homesites for early subscribers.

He spent the next five months routing the course, staking out the holes, and eventually building plasticene models to scale before turning a spade.

He then spent years on construction, finally opening the course in what is described as raw, unfinshed form with few bunkers yet in July 1910, one month after his single-day visit to Merion.

NGLA formally opened to members in 1911, fully OVER SIXTY MONTHS after the start of the land aquisition process and about five years after CB Macdonald secured the land.

Merion happened in a whirlwind of activity, by any objective, unbiased standard.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

I call the short stories like in the MCC history the "high gloss" version.  I believe you have to look at the intended audience Francis (or his ghost writer at that point) were wrting for. If a US Open attendee or typical club member was reading this, just how interested would he be in the land swap?  Not much. It might be interesting to know as you walked the fairways as a specator or member that at one time, the road got moved.  Would you stop what you are doing (well, we would obviously, having given three of the best years of our lives to Merion and look at the thanks we get!) to go figure out the metes and bounds?  Some general info is all they were trying to convey, so I don't take the words all that seriously.

Mike C,

I guess I could be wrong. I used the approximate boundary that I figured they tried to use and discard.  IF that land was never part of any golf plan, it was IMHO most likely due to the fact that they needed either 2 or 4 holes wide in that area, and its really only wide enough for 3, so with the Quarry and all  other things considered, they simply quickly realized (with Francis in the lead) that getting more length by widening the triangle worked better than widening out the are near 14 tee.

Here is a thought - maybe they wanted to keep the area at 14 tee narrow to keep the length of the clubhouse road short to save money for the golf course and clubhouse!  It has happened elsewhere to affect the routing.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I think they simply realized after deciding they wanted or needed to build an alternate fairway around the quarry on 16 that it didn't leave enough width to fit 14 + 15 appropriately.

Even with that, the original approximate boundary doesn't really even fit the 15th green and 16th tee, as I showed with the purple line tracing of Bryan's overlays the other day.

Still, I think it was the somewhat unanticipated need to work extra fairway around the quarry that created the bottleneck.

Sincerely,
Mike Barker.

[Jeff_Brauer]

That theory is as good as any!  But what does it have to do with HH Barker routing the course in December from the window of a passing train at 45 MPH? (private joke)

Again, I have taken a quick look at all of that, and if you look at features, instead of cramming holes in it makes sense.

I figure they probably laid in 18 and 17 first being closest to the fixed boundary. Then the easiest thing would have been two holes out and back but that leaves them one short and even the end cap par 3, if possible, leaves them below "standard par" which CBM strongly suggested include only 4 par 3's.  Once they put 16 in, an alternate route was preferred.  Maybe that was their vertically reversed Alps hole, which also allows bail out right.

And then, there was that brainstorm.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Amen.

And Hallelujah!

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way Jeff...

Can we now at least agree that I am a superior golf course router than CBM, HH Barker, and that worst of all that novice Hugh Wilson?

After all, in just two hours I was able to come up with a routing that didn't need the Dallas Estate and only required one hole to cross Ardmore Ave!! 

Better yet, I didn't need the membership of GCA to pitch in and send me abroad for a few months study first!! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()