Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects

[Tom MacWood]

The 'truth' seems to lie somewhere in the middle.  I think it may be anachronistic to project back onto the 1920s the concept of the public-access courses that are part of today's planned communities; and it seems a bit misguided to ignore the socio-economic differences between the golfing population (and golfing ethos) of the 1920s and the explosion of golf as an everyman's game (post, say, Arnold Palmer, in the 1960s).  But on the other hand, it does seem to me that putting too-fine a point on what qualifies as a public course (or a municipal course, or a semi-private course) of the 1920s is a bit arbitrary and not very helpful. After all, if you asked the average man on the street his definition of a public course, he might simply say that it was any course that wasn't officially (and expensively) private. Not much help, this post - just my 2 cents.

Peter  

Peter
Why don't you start your own list based on different socioeconomic strata, and good luck trying to determine if rich or poor played at any of the courses. And good luck trying to determine how much was spent on each project and where the funds came from. One of the most interesting aspects of studying golf architecture history is the fact that great golf architecture can come from the most modest to the most extravagant and every where in between. My goal was to find the best public golf courses during this period in reaction to Mike's comment. I don't recall him adding so many caveats....do you?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

That's ok...you have your list and I think that's fine.

But adding courses that were created as part of large resort communities to attract the second-home set and "exclusive" vacationer is really not the comparison I was looking for, nor were courses after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and I thought I had at least made the latter point pretty clear about two or six zillion times.  

In either case, I am starting to like your list now that we're at least getting into some architectural specifics and appreciate your findings.   It's just not what I'd use for comparison to my original statement, and that's ok too because I can try to show the difference here.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:


Regarding your Post #100 why don't you start your own thread with your lists of public courses to prove Mike Cirba wrong about something he said about Cobbs Creek instead of putting your irrelevent lists on a thread I started which was not intended to be about public course lists to prove Cirba wrong? This thread was intended to figure out which significant architects did public courses and which didn't and particularly why some did and some didn't.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:


That article from 1908 you posted in Post #70 is pretty amazing. Do you know which newspaper it's from? That kind of article about the rich and socially prominent was not uncommon back in that day. I doubt there is a mainstream newspaper today though that would dare write and publish an article like that one, except for some vestige of that kind of thing today like Palm Beach's famous "Shiny Sheet." That article is a great example of a newspaper "period piece" and I think it says a lot about that day and age even if Tom MacWood doesn't seem to understand it or understand the distinction.

[Mike Cirba]

Uh...Tom...

Blame me, not MacWood, for bringing my edited version of the list to this thread.

btw...That article was from the NY Times.

[TEPaul]

"btw...That article was from the NY Times."


That doesn't surprise me. Even in my Deb party days back in the early 1960s the NY Times still had what was labeled the Society Page. I don't read the NY Times anymore but I would sure bet that doesn't exist anymore. Those writers specialized in that kind of content and we knew them and they knew all of us. I guess it was basically their business to know who the people were at the parties and such they were reporting on. Some of those articles actually pretty much tried to list most of the people who were there. I bet you could find some like that back in that day of the article in your Post #70.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Those type of articles were pervasive back then, and yes, there were pages listing all the folks at such and such's hob-nobbing party or wedding,etc.

The one's in Florida were a mixture of news and marketing for the latest "community".

I'd like to see what would happen if Howard Wheeler had strode up to the gate, clubs in tow, at one of those places.  

[TEPaul]

"The one's in Florida were a mixture of news and marketing for the latest "community"."


MikeC:

You are very correct about that. In many ways a newspaper back then like the NY Times was actually no different. I'd need to check back through all my research material but there was a guy back then who actually tried to buy up most of the Eastern end of Long Island and turn it into a massive "community" project something like what Henry Flagler had done with the East Coast of Florida basically with his Florida East Coast Railroad and all the communities up and down the Florida East Coast he essentilly created.

It was the same thing in the West coast back then too. An excellent example was that group out there in Northern California known as "The Big Four"----Harry Hopkins, Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford and Collis Huntington. Those were the guys Samuel Morse basically piggy-backed his 18,000 acre Monterry Peninsula project off of.

The model was the same----buy up the land, build and own the railroads, utilities, services, many of the banks, control the newspapers and create the developments and amenities.

Unfortunately, most all the time they did not exactly contemplate the poor guy and the classic public course golfer. It was pretty much all about and for the people who had the money.

[TEPaul]

I would also like to take a very close look at who the people were who Macdonald did all his golf courses for. I think we might find in every case they were people, and often the same people, who were really rich and prominent. With Macdonald that would make some added sense since he was one of those who always refused to actually get payed for what he did in architecture.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:


Regarding your Post #100 why don't you start your own thread with your lists of public courses to prove Mike Cirba wrong about something he said about Cobbs Creek instead of putting your irrelevent lists on a thread I started which was not intended to be about public course lists to prove Cirba wrong? This thread was intended to figure out which significant architects did public courses and which didn't and particularly why some did and some didn't.

Good idea. I think I'll call it: A list of important courses available to the public through 1936 by Tom MacWood. This thread got off track because Mike was boycotting the other thread (hoping it would die and go away) and chose this one to address posts from over there. I'll try to stay on topic.

[TEPaul]

Yeah, sure, with you two (or is it you too?  ) everything is always Mike Cirba's fault, isn't it?  

In this case all anyone needs to do is check out the first and second pages of this thread before Cirba even first arrived on it.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul,

You wrote, "In this case all anyone needs to do is check out the first and second pages of this thread before Cirba even first arrived on it."

Tom, I did, and I believe this is a case where you need to admit you are mistaken. Heaven knows, and so does Tom Mac, that we bump heads far too often, but his first posts on page one were to give examples of the exact type of courses and their architects that you wanted to discuss.

It really was ONLY after he was asked questions that his posts changed from this topic. Yet, in EVERY instance, each of these posts information was not generated by him to take over the thread, but rather were in response to either statements by others, including Mike, or to answer direct questions asked of him. For example, you challenged him on page one with a question about Sharp Park and whether he had ever visited the siote, asked questions or even played it. He responded by saying that he not only visited and played it but that he used to live a short distance from it.

You are wrong on this one...

[Mike Cirba]

Good idea. I think I'll call it: A list of important courses available to the public through 1936 by Tom MacWood. This thread got off track because Mike was boycotting the other thread (hoping it would die and go away) and chose this one to address posts from over there. I'll try to stay on topic.


Tom MacWood,

Actually, you're right in one sense...this thread did get slightly off track because I chose to use it to respond to some things being posted by you on the other thread, but now that we're talking about the exclusivity of "resort communities" versus truly public courses I don't think we're too far from Tom Paul's original intent.

However, I didn't boycott the other thread hoping it would go away.   You can personally bring it up from the back pages where it inevitably sinks from lack of interest every single day because you're the only one posting on it for the next six years for all I care.

I boycotted that thread after trying to participate for some weeks, but it became pointless to try to discuss the topic because you were more interested in holding a personal filibuster that was about as exciting and interactive as the old Pravda propadanda machine.

Essentially, you and Moriarty mischaracterized (or misunderstood) what I had said, and then created a straw man that you tried to kick the stuffing out of.   Time and again I would try to correct your understanding, in the interest of actually having that discussion, but you were impervious and arrogant and it became a total waste of time and energy.

It wasn't helped by the fact that you were obviously making it up as you went along, not relying on actual personal knowledge, but instead when pressed citing sourcces such as 1950s Travel Guides and that biblical source of truth, the "American Golfer's Guide".  

At the end of the day, I think it became pretty obvious that you needed to mischaracterize my statements because when left with only non-resort public courses built before the 1930's and the Great Deprssion, which was my original contention, you couldn't come up with a convincing enough list to feel confident in your rebuttal.

Still and all, I guess it's a list of relatively iimportant courses through 1936 that were available to at least some sgments of the public ,and that's fine, but it has nothing at all to do with anything I ever claimed, so rather continue to frustratingly try to defend against a known misrepresentation of what I originaly said, I simply walked.

No biggie.

 

[TEPaul]

Phil:

You're right on #111.

Actually, I was looking at that drawing on here of Sharp Park by Mackenzie and it's just amazing to me what that golf course once was compared to what it is today. One of those holes---I think the original #5 is just amazing looking on that drawing. I was there not long ago and it looks so different now it seems. Even that lake seems to be just an overgrown marsh.

But my real original intent on this thread was to particularly identify who the significant architects were who never did get involved in public golf projects, and then discuss the probable reasons why. One who never did seems to be Macdonald, despite the fact Mike Cirba produced an interesting article that quoted him as encouraging it, even if he never seemed to get personally involved as others did such as Hugh Wilson who did less courses in his career than Macdonald.

[Tom MacWood]

My point is that by definition, these are resort courses.  

Cleveland Heights is another example... a course built as an integral part of a planned real estate/hotel/resort community designed to spur vacation travel, home sales, and the like.  

Mike
Here is an article on the inception of Cleveland Heights. Apparently Mr. Stahl specialized in developing public golf courses.

Planned communities are not resorts. Planned communities can be established in all sorts of environments.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

You try to make Mr. Stahl look like Joe Jemsek!    

He was primarily a builder of high-class residential subdivisions, and he used recreational amenities to attract investors, built communities, sell real estate, and so on.   Nothing wrong with that, but his projects were about selling high-end real estate, first and foremost.

Here's some more accurate portrayals.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gEkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mEwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3797,3733968&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sUkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-kwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4951,5186682&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en

[DMoriarty]

“
Wayne and I, amongst others, happen to be on that committee and if the above is your approach to the USGA’s Architecture Archive and its  Committee, by, in effect, admitting up front you will only deal with some members of it and not others; well then, I guess you are going to be basically shit out of luck there, fella! Perhaps what you should devote your time and efforts to in the future is to write a new iteration of Dale Carnegie's book entitled "How to Win Friends and Influence People While Constantly Burning All Your Bridges To Them."  

I'm "shit out of luck?"   Because you recanted your insincere "olive branch," extended during one of your late night ramblings and about which you apparently blacked out?   Hardly.    

But if the USGA is really trying to develop a repository of all documents relevant to the determination of the complete, accurate, and supportable histories of old courses, then your involvement means the USGA itself may be "shit out luck."   Unfortunately, by extension, all of us interested in a complete and accurate record may be "shit out of luck" as well.  

My concerns about the USGA's Architecture Archive are well founded.  Unfortunately, whether by gross incompetence, dishonesty, or some of both you and Wayne have proven yourselves incapable and/or unwilling to locate and bring forward true, accurate, complete, and supported histories of some of the finest clubs in America, and have ignored all reasonable standards critical discourse.  Plus, you guys also have a long history of failing to deliver as promised.  (How long has the Flynn book been pending?  A decade?)

So yes, I am concerned that you and Wayne are apparently on the Committee charged with creating the USGA Architectural Archive.  Anyone authentically interested in seeing a complete and accurate history of our great courses come to light ought to be concerned as well.

In the interests of truth and accuracy I guess we should hope that, like so much else the two of you have promised, you guys never get around to getting it done.  

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Mike Cirba, if you ignore courses built with the intent of attracting residents and tourists, then you need to throw out many or most of the municipal courses as well.   Attracting outsiders quickly became a driving force behind creating public golf courses for both developers and munipalities.   Ask Phil the Author how many times the advocates at the San Antonio papers insisted that a course at Brackenridge Park would lead to a flock of tourists and future residents heading to San Antonio.  Is it any less a public course because of this?    

  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You try to make Mr. Stahl look like Joe Jemsek!    

He was primarily a builder of high-class residential subdivisions, and he used recreational amenities to attract investors, built communities, sell real estate, and so on.   Nothing wrong with that, but his projects were about selling high-end real estate, first and foremost.

Here's some more accurate portrayals.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gEkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mEwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3797,3733968&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sUkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-kwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4951,5186682&dq=golf+cleveland-heights&hl=en

Thank you for confirming Cleveland Heights' inclusion on the list.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Would you consider Rustic Canyon or Griffith Park and Trump National- LA as synonymous courses serving the same public purpose?  Or Torrey Pines and Aviara?

Tom,

It's your list Tom...add whatever you like.

I don't see high-end, second-home resort community courses as public courses and I'm not sure why you and David don't see any distinction.

But, since we don't want to offend those denizens of public courses, the Hamptons Yacht Set, you should also add the original Montauk Downs to your list

I'm also betting that if I drove my yacht into Newport bay I could get a game at that club, as well...what do you think?   Should we add them?

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

With posts like your #116 that seems to reflect your attitude to others and your approach to golf course architect you will just continue to isolate yourself more than you already have. The offer of some kind of olive branch will remain but not as long as the attitude you've articulated a few times on this thread and other threads remains. At this point, if anyone out there takes you seriously, I must say I'm not aware of it.

The USGA Architecture Archive has gotten some good structure and traction recently and its beginning to look pretty potential. If you want to get involved in the process you can but not if you choose to deal with some of the committee and not others.

[Mike Cirba]

Although it wasn't built to sell high-end seasisde mansions, or fill adjacent luxury hotel rooms, or create a subtly distinctive air of class, savoir faire, and exclusivity, or drive marketing articles in "Town and Country" magazine like most "public courses" of the time, these articles detailing the origins of the public municipal golf course at Brackenridge Park in San Antonio are pretty cool anyway.

Strangely, it seems that the city simply wanted to maximize their park system for the recreational benefit of the entire economic strata of their citizenry, which seems oddly egalitarian and in the original spirit of the game, almost St. Andrewian even.     

Sorry for the width of them, but they are very interesting, and certainly worth perusing.

[Kirk Gill]

I looked up that Hostetter's Stomach Bitters. 94 Proof. That would definitely put me in an egalitarian state of mind.

[Mike Cirba]

Kirk,

Yes, to Tom Paul's original point, I find it interesting how quickly the idea of public golf and the comparisons to affordable golf for all provided at St. Andrews and other courses in Scotland referred to by CB Macdonald, Travis, et.al. above, quickly veered into more of a "Country Club for the day" economic model in many cases, with the creation of golf courses as amenities for high-end, exclusive resort communities.

Other than the municipal courses, which were largely taxpayer-funded (but meant to at least break even with amenities like food and locker fees), not many of the leaders of early American golf actually put their monies (or time) where there mouths were, it seems.

[TEPaul]

Macdonald and Raynor did do the Old White course at the Greenbriar early on (mid-teens) but the Greenbriar was definitely a high-end resort. At that time I believe the Greenbriar was managed by the Plaza Management Co, and the two men who owned and ran The Plaza corp were friends of Macdonald's. For many years Mr and Mrs Macdonald had an apartment in the Plaza Hotel in New York City.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

The mention of Tillinghast above, and the articles about Brackenridge Park in San Antonio reminds me that Tilly was a HUGE proponent of public courses as a sportswriter in Philadelphia and he and William Evans virtually embarrassed the city officials into agreeing to a public course within the Fairmount Park system.   

I suspect he relished building one for San Antonio.