[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

Now that we are in agreement about the triangle, perhaps we can set aside that area up there for the time being and consider the following:

I suspect that, originally, HDC's +/-100 acre offer included the entire width of the Johnson Farm.  If I am correct about this, would you agree that the November 1910 map excludes from golf a very substantial portion of the Johnson Farm?  Would you further agree that, generally, the excluded land is approximately where the fine homes have been built along Golf House Road?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I have to run to lunch but a few things:

I am going from memory on a lot of this, not being so obsessed as to go back and look up details.  As this is the case, I mistyped Leslie, meaning Lloyd, who was, I think a part of HDC (he recapitalized it) and MCC. My bad.

I agree that the Nov 1910 map does exclude a large part of the Johnson farm from golf.  I am not sure why you find that signifigant. I believe that the approximate road moved in 1911 as the routing was finalized and generally was a matter of swings east and west of several yards to fit golf holes.

I doubt it included the entire Johnson farm because it was always the plan to leave some land for development, and leave about 120 acres for golf, because that is what CBM said it would take, as the club expert (and perhaps the Barker routing inadvertently showed that 100 acres wasn't enough) In any event, if they had only 141 acres, and 120 was for golf, I think the remaining parcel wouldn't really be enough to bother developing, which may have led in part to acquiring the Dallas Estate for both golf and real estate reasons. It never hurts to control as much land as possible in golf/real estate transactions. I will add that at that parcel size, it is not practical to mix housing and golf any more than they proposed.  It takes well over 400 acres to have any sausage golf links between houses.

I really think the whole triangle mess comes about because Turnbridge Road had already been fixed as the intersection point and CH road had to meet there, for safety, and/or because they generally would have wanted to maintain access to the two parcels (haverford college back parcel and the one on college ave)  If not for that, the Clubhouse Road intersection may very well have been located further west, and their would have been a rectangular parcel for 15 green and 16 tee.  But, as it happened, there wasn't, leading to the need to configure the road in a crazy way in the end.

[Mike Cirba]

I don't understand the contention that much of the Johnson farm was not on that land plan?

It totalled 140 acres, we all agree 21 acres weren't usable for golf, the land plan that includes the Dallas estate (also 21 acres) is 124 acres, so it seems it uses 103 of 119 available. 

[JESII]

Jeff,

You're saying the 11/10/1910 Map is gospel and then making an interpretation on what it means...I don't get it.

Why would Merion let someone else pinch them in so tight before they had a a good idea of where they were going? There were other options for land, these guys didn't have a strangle hole on them.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I have to run to lunch but a few things:

I agree that the Nov 1910 map does exclude a large part of the Johnson farm from golf.  I am not sure why you find that signifigant. I believe that the approximate road moved in 1911 as the routing was finalized and generally was a matter of swings east and west of several yards to fit golf holes.

Then we are in agreement here.  

I doubt it included the entire Johnson farm because it was always the plan to leave some land for development, and leave about 120 acres for golf, because that is what CBM said it would take, as the club expert (and perhaps the Barker routing inadvertently showed that 100 acres wasn't enough) In any event, if they had only 141 acres, and 120 was for golf, I think the remaining parcel wouldn't really be enough to bother developing, which may have led in part to acquiring the Dallas Estate for both golf and real estate reasons. It never hurts to control as much land as possible in golf/real estate transactions. I will add that at that parcel size, it is not practical to mix housing and golf any more than they proposed.  It takes well over 400 acres to have any sausage golf links between houses.

Remember that if they could get this deal done, then they were going to exercise their options on about 190 more acres.  Add in the parts of Johnson that weren't used, and they they would have had plenty of land - over 200 acres - to develop.

I really think the whole triangle mess comes about because Turnbridge Road had already been fixed as the intersection point and CH road had to meet there, for safety, and/or because they generally would have wanted to maintain access to the two parcels (haverford college back parcel and the one on college ave)  If not for that, the Clubhouse Road intersection may very well have been located further west, and their would have been a rectangular parcel for 15 green and 16 tee.  But, as it happened, there wasn't, leading to the need to configure the road in a crazy way in the end.

I think the Access issue to the College property was key.   That property looks connected to the rest of Haverford College, but in practicality it is not, because of the creek and the RR in between.   So not routing GH to at least the corner of their property would have been effectively cutting off their access, which isn't generally allowed.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

With what you said to Jeff Brauer on your #797 and #800 I realize you would probably like to just proclaim that you have agreement with Jeff Brauer (and hopefully others) and try to just get out of this discussion altogether and with everyone. However, I think you are totally failing to admit or even acknowledge that this Francis land swap fix and story has two distinct but yet very important points and questions to it.


1. WHEN the triangle (or the overall Francis fix) was created?
2. WHO (HDC or MCC (Francis)) was responsible for or largely responsible for its creation (the triangle)?


I think you do have agreement with Jeff Brauer and probably the rest of us on #1 but I do not believe you have agreement at all with Jeff Brauer (I spoke with him about it on the phone this morning for over a half hour) or anyone else I'm aware of on #2 with the possible exception of Jim Sullivan who has said he has some very different reasons for thinking not just Francis but the rest of the committee created it (or partially created it) before Nov. 10, 1910 than your reasons for concluding that only Lloyd and Francis were the only ones from MCC who were responsible for creating it before Nov. 10, 1910, and in your mind with C.B. Macdonald in 1910.

Do you deny that your contention (premise) in your essay is that Francis was out there in 1910 with Lloyd (and Macdonald) and without the other members of the Wilson Committee and it is one of the fundamental premises of your essay that goes along with the other premises you made in that essay that fundamentally allows that essay to reach the ultimate conclusion (thesis) that it does---eg that Macdonald was the router and designer or the driving force behind the routing and design of Merion East and that the rest of the Wilson Committee were only the constructors or builders of it beginning in the spring of 1911?

If you do deny that then perhaps we are all mostly there and in agreement on what the actual architectural history of Merion East was in 1910 and 1911 and who was largely responsible for its routing and design and creation. If that's the case I think this long-going subject and discussion is probably near conclusion with pretty much a consensus of opinion all around.

[DMoriarty]

As I understand the facts . . .
1.   The concept for the land swap came about before that November plan was drawn.
2.   According to Francis, the swap was his idea, but surely the details were worked out both before and after the Nov. 10, 1910 plan was drawn up.

. . . The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some we could use?
       Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.

[TEPaul]

"As I understand the facts . . .
1.   The concept for the land swap came about before that November plan was drawn.
2.   According to Francis, the swap was his idea, but surely the details were worked out both before and after the Nov. 10, 1910 plan was drawn up.

. . . The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some we could use?
       Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee."




Precisely!

But on #1 that does not necessarily mean the entire idea for a triangle before Nov. 10 1910 and as it appears on that Nov. 1910 Land Plan was Francis' idea------and on #2, even if the swap idea was his, which it most certainly appears to have been, that does not necessrily mean that Francis was responsible for creating the entire triangle out of a 160 yard wide by 310 yard long rectangular shape in that area and it does not mean his idea happened before Nov 10, 1910.

It seems, at this point, that most everyone other than you essentially believes Francis' idea and his fix involved adding some width to an already existing triangle that clearly appeared on that Nov 1910 Land Plan and may've appeared somewhat the same on the contour survey map the Wilson Committee was using to route and design the course in 1911. This interpretation clearly assumes and concludes that what Francis was referring to in his 1950 article on the triangle was what its dimensions (130 wide by 190 long) was as the final product created to put the 15th green and 16th tee up into where they have always existed since being built.

[DMoriarty]

So then, are we all in agreement that Francis came up with his idea for the swap before November 10, 1910?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I recognized your attempt to get agreement in small bites as a lawerly tactic to trip up a witness, but I am not biting on that one!  I am most definitely not in agreement with that.

Where do you have the facts to back up that claim, other than your opinon that it surely must have happened and no other explanation makes sense?

[TEPaul]

"So then, are we all in agreement that Francis came up with his idea for the swap before November 10, 1910?"


David Moriarty:

Not at all. We are not in agreement on when Francis came up with his "swap-fix" idea and we are not in agreement about who was originally responsible for creating A triangle in that area. I'm not aware of anyone who is in agreement with you on those points with the possible exception of Jim Sullivan (but for reasons that are not the same as yours are).

Is there something about my two previous posts (#805 and #897) you don't understand?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I recognized your attempt to get agreement in small bites as a lawerly tactic to trip up a witness, but I am not biting on that one!  I am most definitely not in agreement with that.

Where do you have the facts to back up that claim, other than your opinon that it surely must have happened and no other explanation makes sense?

Jeff,  So much for our attempts to leave out the petty personal comments.

My goal was to see where we have agreement and where we don't.  The advantage of going through detail by detail is sometimes avoids much of the postering about broad positions which goes on here.  It focuses on why we believe not what we believe.   Plus, looking at the details might help us avoid the misunderstandings that both of us have had about our positions.  

As for the "facts" to back up my claim, I've repeated them over and over again.  And Jeff, there is more there than my opinion.  

[Kris Shreiner]

David,
Thank you for the welcome to the site. I appreciate your editing and apology, even if you couldn't help yourself with another dig at Tom. I know it's hard, so well just move forward. I'd be happy to discuss things further offline. I certainly have no quarrel with you.

If you notice the tenor of today's exchanges, they are handled in the manner that we should consistently strive for here. Keep the personal nonsense out...let the subject matter be the focus. In this way, GCA can retain its high standard and everyone can get along. Kudos to all!

I personallly think this thread has been excellent in the main: spirited exchanges, interesting points at play, varied illustrations and some pretty cool research being shared.

Cheers, Kris

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

If it makes you feel better, I certainly do not feel your comments about no agreement with Moriarty in your post that he quoted above shows the slightest bit of personal innuendo towards him. You just pretty much mentioned why you disagreed and asked him to provide some facts regarding what you disagreed with him on. It's only about architecture. I'm afraid he uses that "personal and insult" card just too often and to deflect and avoid having to deal with a point he apparently realizes he can't deal with without looking bad or admitting he's wrong about something.

And I really don't even expect him to deal with the questions in my previous posts because he obviously realizes he can't and for the same reasons he just deflected you.

It is just amazing to me that someone can carry on the way he does on here and for so long on this subject and still claim he is actually interested in having a productive discussion about it.

And his logic or reasoning is pretty much something I've never seen before in anyone; it's like he believes if he just thinks something or says something that should rise to the level of 'verifiable fact."  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Sorry about that.  Sometimes it’s hard to keep the two separate for me.  Perhaps I said that because you were wrong in a few of your assumptions that seemed to me like a bit of an over reach.  I did consider that you were being humorous, given the new found sense of humor displayed by TMac and Melvyn, though.

Also sorry to make you post any of the "facts" that back up your claims.  As noted, I am going from memory, and really don't have either your essay or hundreds of pages on multiple threads memorized.

We are all guilty of sort of arguing past each other.  So, I guess your operation of trying to find small parts of agreement could be very productive.  So for now, I find the general areas of agreement (taken mostly from your posts to me recently and slightly reworded for tense and sense, but with no intent to change their meaning) to be:

The map of Nov. 10, 1910, where both sides had been working on the deal since the middle of June 1910, represented what HDC and MDC had agreed to up to that point. 

It was intended to be a win-win deal.  Merion made certain demand to have a golf course they wanted, including 120 acres, using the clubhouse and quarry for golf, etc.  HDC got the real estate benefit of the golf course, but for any number of reasons, had to go out and buy the Dallas Estate and throw it in the development pot.

It is fair to say that HDC and Merion did not want the exact same things in the deal, but NO MATTER, because they did in fact make an agreement as represented in the November 1910 plan.

(Note: You say it was at a relative loss.  I say it was to give them enough extra land to develop a nice neighborhood of fine homes.  Elements of both are true.) 
 
Originally, it fair to say that HDC wanted to sell Merion around 100 ACRES of land.  I am not sure how specific it was.  However, I do believe it was narrowed down quite a bit by both the Barker routing and the CBM consultation in June 1910.

Also, when it turned out Merion needed 20 more acres, HDC went out and bought the Dallas Estate.  Perhaps not great for HDC, but necessary to do a development of decent size.  And more importantly, it happened, so there is no need to put any spin on it.

We agree the November 1910 map did NOT reflect where HDC started the negotiations with MCC.  It reflects where they were in the process on that date and what the two parties agreed to, which was subsequently put in a deed on Dec. 16, 1910, and modified in July 1911 after the golf course was configured.

What we agree the November 1910 map:
•   It reflects where they were and what they had agreed to on that date.
•   The map was illustrative, to give the Members an idea of what land they were buying, and it served its purpose well.   
•   Not all the details had been worked out, so we wouldn't expect it to be perfect, but it generally reflects the state of agreement at this point.
•   The green triangle included in the 11-19 map of the golf course was meant to be in the golf course and the “Western Boundary” of the golf course was undecided. 

We agree that the November 1910 map excludes from golf a very substantial portion of the Johnson Farm, land generally west of the golf course that later was approximately where the fine homes have been built along Golf House Road.

WE agree that HDC had the option for more land just west of the old Johnson Farm boundary, out to Cooperstown Road, which the map shows was added to the deal by Nov 1910.  With that and the parts of Johnson Farm not used for golf they had a nice plot of land to develop.

We agree that the intersection of Golf House Road and College was more or less fixed, most likely because access to the back parcel of Haverford College had to be maintained.  Oddly, the triangle deal did cut this off, and TePaul mentioned to me that MCC gave Haverford College an easement by 16 tee over ten years later, about when the Roaring 20’s started.  I am guessing the area was hot again and they wanted the option to sell the property but it was landlocked…..but, I digress.

Does that sum up what we agree on?  I hope so.  I was actually surprised to see some of your areas of agreement with me, but it appears we still interpret the "fill in the blanks" grey areas differently. 

BTW, the second map I refer to is the final plat map, basically showing how the area was finally configured after the golf course was built.  I have never actually seen it, but am saying we have to compare their preliminary plan of Nov 15, 1910 with what got built today as two known "facts."

Now on to where we disagree, and hopefully not in an unpleasant way:

I still believe that the main point of contention is when the golf course was routed, is it not?
You look at the known facts, general agreements and conclude it was done prior to the map shown.  Others look at known facts, general agreements and conclude it had to be after that date.  It is still a matter of what other outside facts we place more importance on in this historic debate.

While you may have presented some "facts" to back that claim up, I can't recall any you have posted that haven't been superseded in my mind by other occurrences, such as the MCC record mentioning the routing taking place in April 1911.  And, frankly, most of your posts (IMHO) mix known facts with your logic in connecting the dots, and I happen to disagree with many of them.

Jim Sullivan,

If I made any interpretations on that map, they were simply:
•   Accepting that map as representing what HDC and Merion agreed to at that point as a basic plan moving forward (and that is fact since they both proceeded from that point, deeds were drawn up, money exchanged, etc.  How can that not be fact”
•   Rebutting any insinuation that other types of lots, different land planning theories, etc. could have been used.  But those theories were advanced by you or David.  I AM saying the map in the bible.  It shows exactly what they were thinking on both development (houses fronting the road) and golf side (with an approximate road to be changed as necessary LATER.  If it was fixed before the plan was draw, why would it be shown as approximate?)

[DMoriarty]

Jeff think that is a good assessment of what we agree upon. Not necessarily every detail (for example I haven't gone back to see what exactly else they had optioned)  but generally I think we are in agreement on the issues you mention.  My one minor quibble is with your statement that the western boundary was "undecided."  I agree to the extent that you mean not finalized.

As for the nature of our disagreements, it probably wont surprise you that I disagree.  I don't think I am going outside the known documents for my theory.   But no need to get into all that again.  I would like to clarify one thing though:

My goal is to figure out what happened.   My "main point of contention' has never been about when the course was routed.  For me the main point of contention has always been the extent of CBM's involvement in the design, and it is my belief (based on the facts as I know them) that CBM was the driving force behind the routing and the hole concepts.  TEPaul and Mike have long focused almost all of their energy on this timing issue, and love to say it "the lynch-pin of my argument" but that has always overstated its importance, especially considering all the information that has leaked out supporting my main point.  

Can you show me this MCC document that mentions that the routing took place April 1911.   I've seen no such document. I've read carefully selected portions of what TEPaul claims is part of the minutes, but not even they say that the routing took place in April 1911.  It was finalized in April 1911, by CBM.  But even those documents indicate that they had been working on it before, but they don't say when.  

You asked about facts which back up my argument.    They are essentially all of the facts that we agree upon above, plus the Francis statement.  

1.a. Francis told us that MCC gave up the land west of the course on which the fine house now sit.
1.b. "We agree that the November 1910 map excludes from golf a very substantial portion of the Johnson Farm, land generally west of the golf course that later was approximately where the fine homes have been built along Golf House Road."

2.a.  Francis told us that this land was exchanged for land where the 15th green and 16th tee now sit.
2.b.  We agree that "the green triangle included in the 11-19 map of the golf course was meant to be in the golf course."

3.a.  I think we agree that green triangle doesn't specifically match Francis' description (the width is off by 15 yards, according to Bryan.)
3.b.  But we also agree that we wouldn't expect it to be perfect, because nothing was finished yet.
etc.

In other words,  I think that the Nov. 1910 map reflects the state of things after Francis had his idea for the swap. but before all the details had been worked out.

To put it another way, I think the Nov. 1910 would have been necessarily different if the swap hadn't yet been contemplated.

And, I don't think it reasonable to read Francis as only writing about moving a boundary a few yards one way or another. This reading renders his statement almost meaningless.

We couldn't fit the holes . . . I then had an idea for a land swap . . . I rode my bike in the middle of the night to Horatio Gates Lloyd's house because I just had to tell him about my idea of moving the boundary ten or fifteen yards here and there. I did this even though the boundary had already been set up soft so we could adjust it here or their at our need!!

 
I am not trying to be a smart-aleck here.  If the swap hadn't been contemplated as of November 1910, then the above statement seems to be the way to read Francis.   We agree that the land for the houses had already been given up. We agree that, although not exact, the golf course was already up in the area he described.  We agree that this represented a soft border and would remain a soft border until the course details were finalized.

Given our agreement, on these things, then how could Francis have meant anything more than my caricature above?

I hope that better explains my position.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Yes you are technically correct that the routing was approved in April, and thus obviously must have had to occur before that.  I am not sure CBM approved it from those notes. He approved a routing, but then they did five more upon return if I recall the notes right.  Maybe they were all minor variations on a theme.  Maybe Francis had his swap idea then.  We shall never know.

As to the Francis "Paul Revere Ride" story, as you know, I have always sensed some of that was hyperbole on the part of the author or Francis, over dramatizing the story a bit for the history.  In reality, the first part of his message seemed sort of understated and then it got more dramatic later. 

If we accpept the drama in the story told 50 years later for a club history then it would seem that the road swap was a big idea, larger than moving the road a few yards. Of course, that is just a perception I have and it could be wrong.  I also put stock in the quarry blasting account in that telling, whereas you surmise that must be a mistake.  How do we know?

For that matter, it is entirely possible that the swap idea happened prior to the Nov drawing and the surveyor simply drew the triangle wrong or casually, having no idea how much land it took to squeeze in the 15th green and 16th tee. 

On the other hand, if the swap had been worked out, even to a semi finished state, then I would have expected the engineer to have made that drawing with a stick drawing of holes in front of him and would have made the road with wider swing.  Hey, maybe he did have a stick drawing, but had no idea of how far left of the centerline the fw would be.  Or maybe they just didn't get him their plans and he fudged it without really knowing where it would go.  All possible, as is their buying land based on "knowing" 120 acres was what they wanted and figuring they could fit in a routing, given just a little road flexibility.

It could have happened many different ways. I wish there was more definitive evidence of when, because it is oddly fascinating for those of us with historic bent.  I can certainly see your point of view on that, even while disagreeing based on my own perceptions of things.

[TEPaul]

"BTW, the second map I refer to is the final plat map, basically showing how the area was finally configured after the golf course was built.  I have never actually seen it, but am saying we have to compare their preliminary plan of Nov 15, 1910 with what got built today as two known "facts.""



Jeff:

That's very true. I'm not sure what second map you're referring to that you say is a final plat map but it might be the map on page 21 of Tolhurst's book that shows the general area including the East Course, the West Course and the development in between and with a number of land owner names all over it. One can even see that Horatio Gates Lloyd had cobbled together 76 acres of his famous estate, Allgates, across Cooperstown Road in what would eventually become a 125 acre estate overlooking parts of the East course with some really famous gardens (his wife was the president of the Garden Club of America).

When one compares those two maps---eg the Nov. 1910 Land Plan probably done by HDC (Pugh and Hubbard surveyors did that Nov. 1910 Land Plan and they also did the survey (metes and bounds) of the land (161 acres) that HDC passed over to Lloyd on Dec. 19, 1910 and the second map you refer to (which I believe is a so-called "Franklin map") if one compares them, one is certainly struck by how different the curvatures of the "approximate road" on the 1910 map is from Golf House Road when it was built and the way it is today.

To me this (the differences in the curvatures of that road on those two different maps) is the very essence of the so-called "Francis Fix" story of 1950----eg the land swap for land they (MCC/Lloyd) owned for land that they owned but were not using for the course and the additional three acres, that were mentioned and voted on at that April 19, 1911 board meeting when the final Merion East plan was submitted and approved.

If the Francis' idea and fix and visit to Lloyd for permission happened before Nov. 10, 1910 and even before Lloyd owned the land and even before the offer was made to MCC by HDC, I really don't see why that occurence needed to be reflected and mentioned by the MCC board about six month later, and I really don't see why Lloyd felt it necessary to buy 181 acres in Dec. 1910 since he would be giving a considerable amount of it back to HDC anyway when he passed the deed of 120 acres to MCCGA in July 1911.

I think the Francis' story and his fix was one event and at the same time that just added needed width to an existing triangle and the swap took land in green off the top of it and up and down a redrawing of Golf House Road that ultimately added three more acres to the course and got it from 117 to 120.1 which Lloyd passed over to MCCGA by deed in July 1911. I think the "swap" and the added land was all part of a single event that was the result of Francis' idea that very likely happened in the early spring of 1911. At least only one "swap" and additional purchase together was mentioned in the MCC records, and that was on April 19, 1910 at that board meeting. There were never two events mentioned because it doesn't appear there were ever two or another one---only one. At least it was never recorded and I can't see anything every happened with any amount of land additions or whatever to that course that was not recorded and which we do not have copies of.

By the way, I was just speaking with Wayne Morrison and he mentioned all the land cobbling together and deed transfers in Merion East's history totaled seventeen over-all and we have the transfers and deeds to all of them.

Minor Errata----eg it looks like the small sliver triangle of land MCC got along the left of #16 for giving Haverford College an easement off Golf House Road into their land that is now the driving range happened in 1928. Merion did not actually buy that land from Haverford College until 1979 and they paid over $30,000 for it. They bought the P&W land in the 1970s for $11,000!

Those men from Merion seemed to make some pretty good land deals over the years, Huh!  

[TEPaul]

"My goal is to figure out what happened.   My "main point of contention' has never been about when the course was routed.  For me the main point of contention has always been the extent of CBM's involvement in the design, and it is my belief (based on the facts as I know them) that CBM was the driving force behind the routing and the hole concepts.  TEPaul and Mike have long focused almost all of their energy on this timing issue, and love to say it "the lynch-pin of my argument" but that has always overstated its importance, especially considering all the information that has leaked out supporting my main point."


David Moriarty:

Then what is your 'main point' (and/or your essay's, "The Missing Faces of Merion" 'main point') and what is it that you think has 'leaked out' that supports your 'main point?"

If you would like I would be very glad to tell you, and this website, and in detail, why I think "the lynch pin of my (your) argument (and/or your essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion") has always been the timing of Richard Francis's so-called "land swap" idea he went to Lloyd with in the middle of the night that was the crux of his 1950 article and the solution to the problems that he said existed before that (his idea and fix) on the last five holes of Merion East.

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

Your #814 is detailed, comprehensive and very well thought through and thought out. Thank you for your contributions and interest with posts like that----it has to take you quite a bit of time to put up a post like that one because, EVEN IF, we could actually sit down and somehow interview all those participants back then, I suspect the way this all played out in that year or so in various ways would still seem pretty complex to all of us today! 

Actually, Jeffrey, when I wrote the paragraph above I had not yet read your last part to Jim Sullivan! THAT, is really good, really balanced and logical and clear. I think #814 is truly worth printing and taking to Merion and its administration and historians for review and comment vis-a-vis all this THING that has gone on here (GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com) for so long.

[JESII]

It seems that golf course frontage has become the overwhelming explanation for the triangle being present on the November Map...is a fair understanding?

[JESII]

Sorry for the random one-off post in the middle of a bunch of doozies, but I think it's important to realize that if GHR were originally planned as David and I suggest -

From the College Ave. intersection, go straight South to the end of the Haverford College boundary and then turn West and go out to the end of the Johnson Farm boundary. From there you turn South and create a similarly curving road to reduce the acreage considered all the way to Ardmore Ave.

I did a rudimentary measurement on Google Earth...admittedly rudimentary...and found that the current configuration of GHR provides 1,156 yards of frontage and the "decapitated" Johnson Farm has 1,095 yards. 60 yards difference if you don't strain for it.

Now, my real question is, do you really think Merion would agree to buy that triangle, which is at least half useless, in the hope of fitting a golf course within the overall constraints of this property?


Jeff,

I think you should reconsider what exactly Lesley said in April 1911 Board Meeting. Was there a definitive start date in his comments?

[Mike Cirba]

Wow...I've been busy today and it looks like I have about four pages of reading to do to catch up.   

That's ok...if he were still with us I have a good hunch that Hugh Wilson would have thought my time was better spent today doing what I was doing.   George Crump too.   


I'm sure there willl be plenty of time for this discussion later, as it seems we'll still be hashing it all out for at least another few years. 

[TEPaul]

"Can you show me this MCC document that mentions that the routing took place April 1911.   I've seen no such document. I've read carefully selected portions of what TEPaul claims is part of the minutes, but not even they say that the routing took place in April 1911.  It was finalized in April 1911, by CBM.  But even those documents indicate that they had been working on it before, but they don't say when."



I THINK what Jeff is referring to by "this MCC document" is what has been called on here "The Wilson Report to the April 19, 1910 MCC Board meeting." In that report, which was not delivered by Wilson at the MCC Board meeting of April 19, 1910 but by Robert Lesley, the MCC Golf Chairman (Wilson was on that committee but he was not on the board of directors at that time who are the only people who attend "BOARD" meetings! ), it was explained that following the Wilson Committee's trip to NGLA, they (the Wilson Committee) 'rearranged the course into five different plans' and one of them was approved by Macdonald during his April 6, 1911 visit to Ardmore and given to the board on April 19, 1911 and approved to be built.

[JESII]

Tom,

Doesn't the singular use of "course" compared to the plural use of "plans" tell us that the routing was complete and they were deciding between different variations on the same theme?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()