Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick's premise:

The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.

CBM says in Scotland's Gift that "We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once,"

He goes on to say "our intention was to have our first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn"

In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned.  Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site?  Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning.  When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay.  He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.

[MCirba]

Bryan,

While we're at it, let me "ghost write" what was reported at the time of the fire by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on April 13, 1908.   I think it provides some good information consistent with what CBM later wrote, and it also discusses the state of the road system and other related considerations. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure why David keeps attributing the two day theory to Mike, and then flogging him, when it is Patrick’s argument?  Mike is arguing it took longer to route NGLA, and there are many snippets that support that, including David’s timeline in reply 80.  It sure reads like the routing took more than three days to finalize:

Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened.  Here again is what happened, according to CBM:

1.  There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2.  CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3.  The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4.  CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5.  After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later. 
6.  At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7.  At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.


Second, you will note that the actual purchase agreement allows 3 months to complete the routing after option, and I see no reason why they wouldn’t have used it all, if needed.

Third, you will note that the accounts of that horseback ride repeatedly mention only 4-5 holes – the Alps, water, Eden, etc.  So they found some holes on the first rides – they are still short of 18 in that romanticized account!  Finding some general locations for a few holes is not a final routing.

On a separate topic, in re-reading the original solicitation letter by CBM, I believe David has misinterpreted the “hypothetical.” It says specifically that “we would give each subscriber an acre and a half in fee simple.”  The phrase “This is simply a suggestion” really applies to the bond scheme proposed in the next paragraphs.

Lastly, when David says the real estate lots were always part of an adjacent development, I don’t see how he can read it that way, when CBM says “Assuming WE buy 200 acres, and need 110 to build the golf course, We would give each subscriber 1.5 AC….etc.” How could he GIVE the developers lots away if he didn’t own the ground? (However, I have agreed that the developers had to be nonplussed about CBM's initial idea of his own lots, and may have been the ones who squashed the idea soon after the subscription letter went out)

And again, CBM felt need to mention it in his 1912 missive, even though the basic parameters had changed at some point, probably fairly early as they routed the course and felt they needed more than 110 acres, but we can’t tell. 

Note, I am just using the official subscriber letter from CBM and the 1912 update from CBM, not secondary source newspaper articles, and

BTW, I am not sure why DM is flogging Mike on those, because he isn’t really using them either.

And again, my only argument with David may be semantics – I believe it was originally part of the plan, and his use of “never” is wrong, given the offer of 1.5 Acre was in the letter founders signed when they sent the check in, it is a legally binding agreement. I feel it sort of just didn’t work out as they took their time refining the routing, etc..  If he wants to argue that it was out of play by the time of the purchase agreement and that constitutes practically never, okay, I understand.

It is obvious, that those who did sign it were amenable to not having land later, and that the golf course was enough for their money.  Not sure whatever happened to the bonds, as I see no mention of that.  That would probably be common in these kind of ventures, but no one has shown any documentation in between, so I presume some founders thought they were getting some lots, hence CBM's casual mention of leftover land in 1912.  Maybe there is some, and it hasn't been shown.

In the end, I don't see the main participants being all that different in their understanding of how things happened, but they seem desperate to make sure the world sees it in words they would choose to use, not the others. It really isn't worth the word parsing to see who is more right.....

Is there any doubt that this entire thread (and topic repeatedly brought up by Pat, not Mike, but which seems disproven with some of the new articles posted) is really just an excuse to draw Mike into his own public flogging (again)?  And perhaps, vice versa?

[MCirba]

Jeff,

I agree with your last post except I'm not trying to flog anyone, not even Patrick, even if most would likely agree he's richly deserving.    

Seriously, it's a topic that I think is fascinating and goes a long way to show how what a few did back in the early days through intensive planning and careful execution created masterpieces that we still marvel at today.   I think the details are important.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not sure why David keeps attributing the two day theory to Mike, and then flogging him, when it is Patrick’s argument? 

It's NOT my argument, it's a direct quote from Charles Blair Macdonald in "Scotland's Gift".

I'm surprised that you didn't know that

Mike is arguing it took longer to route NGLA, and there are many snippets that support that, including David’s timeline in reply 80.  It sure reads like the routing took more than three days to finalize:

Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened.  Here again is what happened, according to CBM:

1.  There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2.  CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3.  The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4.  CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5.  After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later. 
6.  At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7.  At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.


Second, you will note that the actual purchase agreement allows 3 months to complete the routing after option, and I see no reason why they wouldn’t have used it all, if needed.

Third, you will note that the accounts of that horseback ride repeatedly mention only 4-5 holes – the Alps, water, Eden, etc.  So they found some holes on the first rides – they are still short of 18 in that romanticized account!  Finding some general locations for a few holes is not a final routing.

On a separate topic, in re-reading the original solicitation letter by CBM, I believe David has misinterpreted the “hypothetical.” It says specifically that “we would give each subscriber an acre and a half in fee simple.”  The phrase “This is simply a suggestion” really applies to the bond scheme proposed in the next paragraphs.

Lastly, when David says the real estate lots were always part of an adjacent development, I don’t see how he can read it that way, when CBM says “Assuming WE buy 200 acres, and need 110 to build the golf course, We would give each subscriber 1.5 AC….etc.” How could he GIVE the developers lots away if he didn’t own the ground? (However, I have agreed that the developers had to be nonplussed about CBM's initial idea of his own lots, and may have been the ones who squashed the idea soon after the subscription letter went out)

And again, CBM felt need to mention it in his 1912 missive, even though the basic parameters had changed at some point, probably fairly early as they routed the course and felt they needed more than 110 acres, but we can’t tell. 

Note, I am just using the official subscriber letter from CBM and the 1912 update from CBM, not secondary source newspaper articles, and

BTW, I am not sure why DM is flogging Mike on those, because he isn’t really using them either.

And again, my only argument with David may be semantics – I believe it was originally part of the plan, and his use of “never” is wrong, given the offer of 1.5 Acre was in the letter founders signed when they sent the check in, it is a legally binding agreement. I feel it sort of just didn’t work out as they took their time refining the routing, etc..  If he wants to argue that it was out of play by the time of the purchase agreement and that constitutes practically never, okay, I understand.

It is obvious, that those who did sign it were amenable to not having land later, and that the golf course was enough for their money.  Not sure whatever happened to the bonds, as I see no mention of that.  That would probably be common in these kind of ventures, but no one has shown any documentation in between, so I presume some founders thought they were getting some lots, hence CBM's casual mention of leftover land in 1912.  Maybe there is some, and it hasn't been shown.

In the end, I don't see the main participants being all that different in their understanding of how things happened, but they seem desperate to make sure the world sees it in words they would choose to use, not the others. It really isn't worth the word parsing to see who is more right.....

Is there any doubt that this entire thread (and topic repeatedly brought up by Pat, not Mike, but which seems disproven with some of the new articles posted) is really just an excuse to draw Mike into his own public flogging (again)?  And perhaps, vice versa?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I would love to know any detail I can on some of these. I am not sure this or many of our other threads really uncover those, but rather, debate the meaning of various conflicting accounts.  Hopefully, sometimes some understanding may come out of it.

Pat,

Just read the post, rather than throwing out any missiles, as you usually do.  According to David, the 2-3 day horseback ride was to determine if they even wanted the land, and they went back out later to re-study it.  That is more than 2-3 days by reading Scotland's Gift.  And, they had 3 months to work in, they probably asked for that for a reason.  Quite simply, you are doing what you accuse Mike of - throwing poop against the wall to support your 2-3 day theory so you can bash Mike on Merion some more.  Pretty clever to turn it around so the casual reader won't notice.  But we are smarter than that on gca.com!

[MCirba]

David,

Why would CBM send out a press release in December of 1906 and the purposefully include his 1904 Agreement sent to prospective Founding Members if that plan had already significantly changed? (1904 Agreement reproduced below for reference)

Instead, I would propose this chain of events is supported by the facts we know;

1904 – Macdonald sends out an Agreement to Founding Members where he proposes to “buy 200 or more acres of ground on Long Island”, of which he estimates needing 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for a clubhouse and proposes that 1.5 acre lots can be provided to each of the 60 Founders.

March 24, 1906 – The plan to buy enough land so that the original subscribers could build on the property if they desired was once again published in the New York press. (Reproduced below for reference)

December 1906 – It is reported that Macdonald secured 200 acres of ground on Long Island”.   Included with the press release is the Agreement (verbatim in some cases as you pointed out) that talks about how the land will be utilized and now Macdonald, in describing the land he has secured is quoted as saying “There are sites available for houses and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay.”

The articles go on to state that the next several months a committee of Macdonald, Travis, Emmet, and Whigham will dedicate time to “lay out the course” and “plan(ning) the holes in detail”.   It is also reported that a plaster of paris model will then be created subsequent to that effort or “after the course is staked out”.

April 1907 – This ongoing work of deciding which holes to reproduce on the available land is reported on by Walter Travis. (Reproduced below for reference)

August 1907 – An article for the first time showing the routing of the National Golf Links appears in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.   If there is interest I can reproduce it again here.

August 1908 – An article describing construction of the National surprisingly shows that Walter Travis is still part of the effort at this point.   If there is interest I can reproduce it again here.

January 1912 -  Macdonald in a letter to the Founders again refers to the “Surplus Land” he mentioned in the original Agreement indicating that no determination has been made as of that time regarding its usage.

I also find it related and relevant to include the rest of what Max Behr wrote in 1915 about the routing of the National Golf Links and best practices in general, a portion of which you posted yesterday.   I’ve bolded portions for emphasis;

Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course
and is available for other purposes. And there you have the
solution of the whole business. A golf links takes as a minimum
from a hundred to a hundred and ten acres and ten more is needed
for club-house, garage and roads. You may be fortunate enough
to find a property of a hundred and ten acres which would fill
all requirements. But it is far safer and probably cheaper to
buy a hundred and fifty or two hundred acres because what land
you do not need for golfing purposes can be sold for building sites
and cannot fail to fetch a far higher price than the original
cost. No golf links was ever made in this country without
enhancing the value of the surrounding property. And the
advantage of buying plenty of land is to allow the club to lay out
the best possible course without actually using more acres.
The acreage of the course itself will be about the same in any
case, from a hundred to a hundred and ten acres; but the value
of the course will depend a good deal on being able to get just the
acres you want with all the best features of the landscape;
and to get that it is often necessary to buy a good deal more
land than is actually needed for the course. Golf clubs are
beginning to realize the value which they give to land; and for
that reason it has become customary for years past for clubs to
buy their land outright. It is now being realized that if a club
buys double the amount of land actually needed for the course
it will eventually be able to sell the extra acreage at such a price
that the links itself will be paid for out of the profit on the real
estate transaction. So that although it is possible to lay out a
course and build a house on a hundred and ten acres, we would
advise the purchase in every case of at least a hundred and fifty
acres; and from a financial point of view it can hardly ever be
wrong to purchase anything up to two hundred acres.

Of course, we know that lots were never sold to Founders at NGLA but to say this was never the plan for the land CBM eventually purchased seems to lack a factual foundation.   If you have information contemporaneous or otherwise that shows that Macdonald changed his mind regarding his Agreement prior to December 1906 I’m certainly happy to adjust my understanding, thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

1.    I never said Mike actually believed the NGLA-Routed-in-Two-Days-on-Horseback theory.  To the contrary, it is one of Mike's many red-herring arguments he has been offering it up for the past 6 years (at least) to impugn the credibility of various players and to muddy up the story of what happened in the early days at NGLA.  
      Here he is in 2009, trying to discredit HJ Whigham by falsely attributing the position to him:

Was that Hyperbolic HJ Whigham who also stated that he and Macdonald found everything they needed in terms of holes at NGLA during a single horseback ride when the documented contenporaneous evidence is wildly different, who told us that Merion was a MacRaynor course in 1938 after everyone was dead and buried when the contemporaneous documented evidence wildly differs?
. . .

      Here he is in March 2011 trying to discredit CBM using the same tactic:
March 9, 2011,

Besides, your argument is with CBM, not me.   HE is the one who wrote that he and Whigham decided to option the property based on the 2-3 day horseback ride.

      And here is my dismissal of Mike's strategy from February.  It explains my current frustration with Mike for injecting this into yet another discussion:

The bit about it all being done during the horseback rides is purely a red herring created by Mike Cirba himself.  It is a joke.  It has nothing to do with anything I have ever written.  Mike just pretends it does because making up his own straw man is as close as he can come to scoring a point around here.  

It was Mike (not Patrick) who injected in the red herring notion of a quick two day routing on horseback into this conversation.  All Patrick had said was that they "required horseback riding to get around initially," which came right out of Scotland's gift.  Mike couldn't resist trolling out the same old nonsense already well covered for years:

Patrick seems intent in holding onto his belief (aka idealistic fantasy ) that CBM and Whigham routed NGLA in 2 days on horseback (because the ground was so overgrown as to be impenetrable on foot) and snap, bam, boom, 205 acres were purchased and a classic was born!

Unfortunately Patrick took the bait, but that doesn't change the fact that Mike is trolling AGAIN with this red herring, even though everyone paying attention knows that CBM, HJW and others had spent a substantial amount of time going over the land before they secured it.  (Even Patrick has said this over the years.)

2.  The mid-December newspaper accounts only mention four holes by name (three that were recognizable and famous, and one that they felt would soon become recognizable and famous) but I don't think it makes sense to read this to mean that they had only found and considered these four holes by this point.  In fact they also told us quite a lot more about the routing even at this early stage, including the starting and ending point, the shape and location of the course as a whole, and the use of the 1/4 mile of Peconic frontage.  And earlier news reports indicate that they had been going over the land for some time, and had been corresponding about the course with advisors overseas. While nothing was finalized and the planning process was far from complete, they seem to have had some semblance of a rough routing in mind.

3.  Your interpretation of the land hypothetical (starting, as hypotheticals often do, with "Assuming we . . . ") in the 1904 letter is interesting, but one with which I disagree.  As I read it, and (more importantly) as they seem to have read it, the entire structure of the club dealings - the associate number and fees, the assumption about the surplus land, the bond scheme, was a "suggestion" with the "details to be worked out later."  The point was this was all left up to the founders.  This is confirmed by the 1912 letter which notes that the Founders were to decide what to do with the surplus land.   Had it not been a suggestion, then they'd have been bound to divvy it up in fee simple.

4.  You wrote, "When David says the real estate lots were always part of an adjacent development, I don’t see how he can read it that way . . .." Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I am talking about the actual NGLA purchase, not the 1904 hypothetical.  As you know, CBM bought the land from a developer who was in the process of building and hotel and developing the land adjacent to NGLA into real estate lots.  CBM was referring to the development when he said there is an adjacent hotel and home lots available.  You and I agree that the developer wouldn't have sold CBM land so CBM could take away the developers business.

5.  You indicate that Mike is not using the secondary source newspaper articles.  I think you are mistaken, as Mike's many references to these articles indicate.  

6.  I don't think our positions are that far apart either.  If I said the scheme was "never part of the plan" I was referring specifically to the actual land purchase.   What I mean is that when CBM secured this land, he was not planning on divvying up a huge chunk of the 205 acres to the founders for lots.  He knew that the course itself would take up most the land, and explicitly stated that the land purchased would be tailored around the actual golf course, and he made no mention of a large real estate component.  CBM left it to the founders to decide what to do with whatever would be left over after CBM got his course.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  You ask, "Why would CBM send out a press release in December of 1906 and the purposefully include his 1904 Agreement sent to prospective Founding Members if that plan had already significantly changed?"

First, Mike, so we don't have to go over it again down the road, can you confirm that you now agree that these newspaper articles are relying on the language in the 1904 letter/agreement?

Second, it might help advance the conversation if you actually and carefully read the source material, including material you post. Rather than relying on "a press release," the Sun article explains where they got the information.   It was from a Notice that payment was due sent by CBM to those who had agreed to found the club pursuant to the 1904 letter and whatever else CBM had sent them.  Is it really a mystery to you why CBM would send 1904 letter to potential subscribers when asking them to send him the money for their subscriptions?

Third, the same general plan was in place.  CBM would design and build the course and then the founders could do with whatever was left over as they determined.  The "suggestion" assuming 200 acres and 110 acres for the course, was just that.  The founders could work out the details later, depending on what, if anything was left over.

Fourth, you ask, "If you have information contemporaneous or otherwise that shows that Macdonald changed his mind regarding his Agreement prior to December 1906 I’m certainly happy to adjust my understanding, thanks."  I just answered this a few posts above, Mike. But here it is again,

Evidence that CBM had "changed his mind regarding" the housing component includes the following:
1.  CBM had already tried to purchase 120 acres of land near the Canal.  Obviously there was no room for a housing component on this parcel.  
2.  CBM explained that the exact boundaries of his purchase would be determined by the needs of the golf course. There would be no need to tailor the exact lines to the course unless he was only buying land for the course.
3.  Even by his description of his preliminary plans in December 1906, there was no room for 90 acres of housing.

Two questions:

1. We agree that by December 15, 2006 CBM and others had already been going over the land very carefully and that they already knew (at least) the beginning and end point, the length of the property, the use of the 1/4 mile on Peconic Bay, the mile of golf frontage on Bullshead Bay, the narrow width, the location of at least three famous and one soon to be famous holes, etc.  It seems safe to assume they had some other ideas as well. You think that CBM meant for the 1904 example to apply to NGLA.  If so, where exactly was CBM planning on putting the 90 acres of housing?

2.  You've admitted that the language in the Tribune article came from the 1904 letter. Do you now agree that the information in the other papers most likely came from the same?   If not, what is your reasoning?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I think Mike has a fair point/question. If the solicitation had materially changed between 1904 and 1906, would we expect CBM to send out an updated version in the document you say is the primary source material? 

You seem to presume it was just more convenient to send out the old, inaccurate one and that it just wasn't that important, but wondering if accuracy was important doesn't seem out of line to me.

Also, when did CBM make the offer on 120 parcel?  Before the 1904 subscription letter or after? I simply don't remember...... 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  

First, the prospective founders had already signed that Letter/Agreement and pledged their $1000 in the space provided.  That CBM would send a copy when asking them to make good on their pledge should be of no surprise to anyone.  That is the way these things work.  

Second, I don't think that in CBM's mind the agreement had been materially altered.  He was going to find his golf course, buy the land, and when the golf course was done, the founders could do what they wanted with any surplus land.  

Third, at this late juncture I don't think it reasonable to have expected that CBM would have torn up the original and started the process over with a new agreement clarifying that he wasn't following the hypothetical.

Fourth, we aren't privy to all the communications CBM had with the founders.  It may be that he did clarify. In fact, as I read the quotes from his December 15, 1906 communication, he seemed quite clear that there wasn't going to be a housing component on the property.  There was a hotel and housing available in the adjacent development.

As for the 120 acre parcel, I don't think we have an exact date, but CBM suggests it was right after the Brooklyn developer bought the property, which I believe was in 1905.  ("The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate but was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.  I offered [the developer] $120 per acre for some 120 adcres near the canal . . ..")

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Thanks, it makes a bit more sense in that timeline, although you could argue that he offered on 120 acres in 1905, and 200 acres in 1906, suggesting he still had the idea in his mind, even as golf was first and foremost.  Offering on 120 doesn't preclude the second offer for more land, it may just have been that is all he thought he could get in that area.

We are all still speculating a lot on the CBM mindset and other conditions.  I think Mike, you, others would all love to see other documents before drawing firm conclusions about the details. 

For instance, how many subscribers did he have when he sent the 1906 "make good" letter?  Were there more frequent communications to existing subscribers?  What did the incorporation papers say?  Also interesting to note that the development around NGLA never really came to fruition, which goes to the point of "sometimes things just don't work out as you envision."

I will wait for any new information from the many intrepid researchers here and elsewhere, rather than continually debate the small differences and the completely unknowable.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,
Mike asked for information showing that CBM had changed his mind about the supposed real estate scheme prior to December 1906.  At the very least the 120 acre offer accomplishes this. The 120 acre offer also demonstrates that CBM was not intent on buying extra acreage for real estate, and it shows that CBM did not think he was bound by the hypothetical in the 1904 Agreement.

I suppose one could argue that CBM was committed to the supposed real estate scheme in 1904, then in 1905 he was only focused on golf, then he changed his mind again in 1906, but given the constraints he had already identified on the NGLA land, and given what else he said about the project, and given he purchased the land from an active real estate development, it seems much more reasonable to think that, like with the 120 acre offer, he was still focused solely on golf.

You are an architect so you can consider the ramifications of trying to stretch a 110 acre golf course out over a two mile strip of land (which according to CBM was the length of the course end to end.) 110 acres stretched 2 miles leaves about 420 feet of width for an out and back course. With split fairways and centerline bunkers, some of the individual hole corridors at NGLA are almost that wide. Given the locations and holes he had already identified and other the holes he envisioned for his ideal course, it seems unreasonable to insist that he was planning on placing 90 acres of housing on that same land.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick's premise:

The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.

CBM says in Scotland's Gift that "We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once,"

Bryan,

Note the words, "at once"
A shortage of funds precluded CBM from building a clubhouse, so he decided to use a convenient nearby Inn

He goes on to say "our intention was to have our first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn"

That's correct.
You wouldn't expect him to have golfers walk 500 yards or 1,700 yards to the first tee, would you

In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay

He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned. 

They didn't own the land near the Shinnecock Inn.
But, if they did, why would they abandon a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn, just because the Shinnecock Inn burned down.
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have remained intact and available for construction.

But, CBM built his clubhouse where he always intended it to be.

In addition, even if NGLA owned the land behind the 9th green, CBM, with his ego, would never build a clubhouse in the shadow of the Shinnecock clubhouse, a club he was recently thrown out of

Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site? 
Even If they owned the land, why not build the clubhouse there ?
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have had no impact on the land, and more importantly, they had a major highway leading up to their front door, so why abandon that theoretical site and build your clubhouse on the other side of the property unless you always intended to build your clubhouse on a site that evena ten year old could figure out as the best site for a clubhouse.

You'd have to be a moron to think that he'd build a clubhouse on land they didn't own, with the Shinnecock clubhouse and the Shinnecock members looking down on him/them



Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning.  When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay. 

Bryan, They didn't own the land

He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.

They abandoned the Shinnecock Inn site because that site was a default site, a site of convenience.
They didn't own the land near the 9th green.

But, they did own the land where the current clubhouse is located.
In addition, the routing of #'s 1 and 18 was deliberate in that perfect land for golf was abandoned in favor of creating a donut hole where the clubhouse was always intended to reside.

When's the last time you heard of someone constructing a building on land they didn't own ?,

[Patrick_Mucci]

.

Pat,

Just read the post, rather than throwing out any missiles, as you usually do. 

I read it and corrected you.

It would seem that you take umbrage to being proven wrong, and when you're proven wrong you resort to claiming that I'm "throwing out missles"
What a pathetic response.

According to David, the 2-3 day horseback ride was to determine if they even wanted the land, and they went back out later to re-study it. 
Oh, so now David, rather than CBM is your guiding source.
How convenient.

That is more than 2-3 days by reading Scotland's Gift.  And, they had 3 months to work in, they probably asked for that for a reason.  Quite simply, you are doing what you accuse Mike of - throwing poop against the wall to support your 2-3 day theory so you can bash Mike on Merion some more. 

Once again you have your facts wrong, which isn't surprising.
Your memory is also failing.
It was Mike who made the claims that CBM couldn't have routed Merion in short order.
From the very beginning Mike, in concert with the Merionettes, tried to dispel the notion that CBM could route a course in short order.
And let's not forget that CBM had the more difficult task of not only routing a course, but routing it in such a way that it contained his ideal and/or template holes

Pretty clever to turn it around so the casual reader won't notice. 

That's funny, I'm waving a red flag and sounding the alarm bells and you're claiming that I'm trying to make a point, unnoticed.

But we are smarter than that on gca.com!

I'm always suspect when someone tells me how smart they are

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I want to ask you a question and I want you to swear that you're telling the truth.

Are other individuals supplying you with information that you're posting ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, it is clear that he intended to leave a little extra land from his 1912 missive, even if it wasn't specifically for members lots (although I happen to think it probably was)  CBM never hired Olmstead (the logical choice) for any sort of subdivision planning, so we are left to wonder if he never considered it, considered it secondary to be figured out later, or was just a little naïve when it came to planning the both together and messed it up.  Probably a combo of 2 and 3, with 2 being prominent.

As to whether the 120 proves he was not interested in real estate, it does occur that a difference in the sites might have some bearing on it.  I believe the 120 acres was smack dab in the middle of the proposed development of SH land company, whereas the final site was said to be a bit more remote, and probably wasn't in the developers immediate plan.  In fact, there never was any real estate development right around NGLA, not to this day! 

Of course, you could also argue that CBM dodged a bullet, not taking a smaller site in a real estate development in favor of a more secluded one, and perhaps saw the advantages at that time of being away in nature (some of his words from the documents) when playing golf. In short, he probably realized that an ideal golf course shouldn't be shoe horned in with housing.  So, you may be right that any real housing went away at the very beginning of buying this site, although CBM did mention the surplus land in 1912, albeit, to be used as the Founders wished, and even the tone )this turned out to be true" does tell us he may have been skeptical or wary of his ability to pull that off while still building the ideal golf course.

Pat,

Again, you post a bunch of words, but really say nothing.  I have been discussing facts we know and various interpretations here with David, and have been glad to ask questions, admit I don't know certain things etc.  Look in the mirror as you describe yourself, not me. 

I recommend you stop posting on your own thread, at least until you have something useful to say on the subject, rather than just trying to insult everyone else.  Your fact free, untruth filled post is the worst kind of attack post, the kind that keeps good people off this site.

[MCirba]

Patrick,

Usually when one is losing a debate the next step is to impugn the motivations or the personal knowledge of their opponent, suggesting by implication that they are somehow "cheating".  

Everything I've posted here is from my own research which includes contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles unearthed primarily by Joe Bausch, CBM's book, a book by David Goddard called "Colonizing Southampton".   I've tried to rely on facts and not conjecture and have preferred to let what was said, particularly by Macdonald himself as well as the timing of events over a number of years guide my research.   Of course, everyone is free to interpret these facts and evidence as they wish.   The best research builds on the shoulders of those who've come before, frankly.

I have also been part of a private email thread with about 15 addressees (some on GCA and some not) that was initiated by Tom Paul.  Frankly, Tom is much more into the history of the people who made up that world than I am but he is not feeding me any information to post and others here on that email can weigh in to correct me if they think I'm simply being a mouthpiece for Tom or any others.

However, in an email discussing David's response to my post (and Jeff's) yesterday regarding the real estate component, something clicked for me last night that I'm not sure Tom or others understood when I responded which I'll be posting about today.   Discussion is sometimes the mother of inspiration and frankly what David mentioned about CBM's initial offer to purchase 120 acres has me much more convinced than ever that I'm on the right track.  

[JESII]

David,

Regarding CBM's intentions for providing a real estate component on the current site, why would he say in 1912 that there is extra land but the Founders haven't yet determined what to do with it? Why would he identify the Founders as the decision makers for that land if it wasn't to be their's specifically as opposed to the Board of Directors or the membership in total?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Good point.  It seems to prove the basic idea to leave extra land as a benefit to the original subscribers was still in place, which is what I have been saying all along.  CBM obviously got carried away with the golf course reducing the other value given for those subscribers, but they sure got their golf money's worth!

David thinks there was no specific intention for founders lots (which wouldn't put NGLA into the bed and hash biz) but the original letters says it is to give them some value for their money.  Obviously, using it for bowling alley, ice rink, etc. for members use wouldn't give them additional return like having a small chunk of real estate, so I do think lots was the original premise, and ongoing premise until CBM took more land.

[MCirba]

”Shinnecock Hills was also very attractive, but I preferred not getting too close to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.  The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.  I offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 per acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.”

“However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck…This property was little known  and had never been surveyed.   Every one thought it more or less worthless.   It abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects.  The only way one culd get over the ground was on ponies.” – Charles Blair Macdonald “Scotland’s Gift”

So what do we know about the 120 acres of land that CBM first made an offer on at $200 per acre besides the fact that it was “near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay”?  

I think we can safely assume that he thought those 120 acres were large enough to contain his ideal golf course.   I think we can also safely assume that as David mentioned, there was not enough land for a real estate component on that plot associated with the fledgling club.

Did Macdonald spend enough time on that site to route an 18 hole golf course there prior to making the offer?  Or did he just find natural landforms that generally convinced him the site would permit the building of his ideal holes?   Did he use the conventional thinking of those days mentioned by Behr and others that a reasonably shaped and configured parcel of land with good natural features of about 110 acres was enough for the creation of a good golf course?   Certainly the round number of 120 acres sounds vaguely familiar from other purchases clubs made around that time.

We also know that CBM determined within “a few weeks” after the real estate company purchased the land on October 28th, 1905 that he would purchase some of the holdings of the new realty company if he could.   We also know that this 120 acres some three miles west of Sebonac Neck was his first choice for locating his golf course of the over 2000 acres of the Shinnecock Hills.

But, why would Macdonald obviously scrap his stated plans to provide plots for the Founders at the 120 acre site he wanted at first?   Related, David asked yesterday why CBM would have directly competed with the developer when he purchased the Sebonac Neck site if indeed he intended the Surplus Land to go to plots that could be developed for the Founders?

The answer to both of those questions I think lies in understanding the fundamental differences between the two sites.  

In 1906 after completing the extensive purchase, the real estate company engaged Olmsted and Vaux to survey and subdivide a good portion of the land they saw as most desirable for housing plots.   From David Goddard’s “Colonizing Southampton”, “This was an ambitious undertaking and covered 1,320 acres in the central and northern sections.   The subdivision was mapped out in eighty blocks that were further subdivided into 352 smaller lots varying in size from three to five acres.   These were to be building lots.   Withheld from the subdivision were the remaining parts of Sebonac Neck…”

The real estate company went on in that first year to build the Shinnecock Inn and make improvements to the roads and railway passes and a priority was now the North Highway, which ”despite earlier efforts, had never been sufficiently hardened.   It was finally made usable, which is to say passable by automobiles.”

Despite these high ambitions, and despite the inevitable success of the new National Golf Links of America, it’s an interesting footnote that the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company went bankrupt in 1924, having sold virtually nothing but the National Golf Links to Macdonald.   Again from Goddard’s book;

”Even the automobile, now the preferred mode of private transportation and one that vastly improved access to the Hills, seemed to have no effect on the real estate market.   A comparison of the Olmsted and Vaux survey map of 1906 with a similar map put out for auction purposes in 1925 is instructive in this respect…It shows virtually no land sales.   The eighty blocks covering thirteen hundred acres in the middle of the Hills were almost completely or more than 90 percent unsold.”

As seen below on the Olmsted and Vaux plan below the Shinnecock Canal was the western boundary of the company's holdings and was approximately three miles further west (closer to New York City) than the Shinnecock Inn.   Given the very poor state of road travel on the northern part of the island at that time it seems likely this was a consideration.  

But more important to the question of why Macdonald wouldn’t have included enough acreage building lots in his purchase offer on that first site is simply because they already existed in the developer’s plans.  Any action by CBM in this regards would have been direct competition as that land was already being surveyed and plotted.  

In comparison, the land of Sebonac Neck, the entire 450 acres was never surveyed and “Every one thought it more or less worthless”.  

Here, CBM was able to secure the 200 acres he originally intended for his Club, and consistent with his original Agreement with the Founders.   There was no intention to sell or build by the developer so any acreage left over could indeed be used by the Founders for building plots.


So what changed and when?   Was it the amount of swampland that compromised the original vision?   Was it the idea that every hole needed alternate routes (and therefore sufficient width to accommodate) that ended up eroding the intended hole boundaries such that homesites became unfeasible?   We don’t know, truly, but I do agree with David that CBM’s primary focus was on his golf course and given his often unyielding nature, he was going to get his way.  

As far as Macdonald’s statement that “we are not going into the hash or bed business”, certainly CBM never intended to build some resort with food and lodging for a club that was generally seasonal, even if they had the money to do so (which they didn’t).   That was the purpose of locating the start and end holes adjacent to the new Shinnecock Inn, which did provide those services.   So, I’m not sure what that statement has to do with CBM’s plan for providing building lots for the Founders so they could build their own cabins or other secondary residences for their weekend visits to the new club?   They were two very different things.

***EDIT*** The sizing of the article and Olmsted/Vaux plan below came out wrong which I'll correct by this evening.   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I wish that, instead of launching into your next tangent to try and justify your preconceived conclusion, that you and your 15 person, TEPaul led, offsite think-tank/circle jerk had taken a few minutes to answer my two simple and straight forward questions.  Any chance of you doing so before you lead the website on this next wild goose chase?

[BCowan]

David,

  Ur arrogance and choice of language has done nothing but derail nice threads.  Go wash ur mouth out with soap.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the advice, Ben.  But if you'd ever had the displeasure of being included in one of TEPaul's email chains, you'd know my language was descriptive and appropriate.

[DMoriarty]

David,

David,

Well, it is clear that he intended to leave a little extra land from his 1912 missive, even if it wasn't specifically for members lots . . .

No, it isn't clear. The 1912 mention of surplus land verifies that CBM intended the founders to control the surplus land, if any. It says nothing about him intending to set aside surplus land when he agreed to purchase the NGLA land.  This is where the 120 acre offer comes in.  He obviously did not intend to set aside surplus land on that offer, but if there happened to be any left over, the founders would control it.  Same for the NGLA plot.  If there was surplus land, the founders would control it.  If there wasn't surplus land, then there was nothing for them to control.  

Let me ask you again, since you haven't answered. If CBM intended to carve out surplus land for the founders, then where was this land to be?   And in answering, don't guess at CBM's intentions, but rather look at CBM's description of what he planned to do with the property and the actual the early maps of the property.  
1.  Most of the property was (and is) land-locked by Peconic Bay, Bullshead Bay, and Shinnecock Golf course.  
2.  The only border that had any potential flexibility was the western border (the Sebonac side.)
3.  CBM indicated that he planned to shape the exact lines of property purchase around the needs of the golf course, and if one looks at this western border it was obviously drawn to fit snugly CBM's golf course.

So when you say it is clear that CBM intended to set aside land and you think it was for housing, where on this property, exactly, did CBM intend to set aside the land? Surely you don't think he was planning on placing houses between the holes do you?  

When answering keep in mind that by mid-December 1906 CBM, HJW, Travis, and others had all been over the land repeated, had already described many details of the routing including the shape and length of the land to be used for the course, the starting and ending point, the quarter mile frontage along Peconic Bay, the mile of golf frontage on Bullshead Bay, the specific locations of three famous holes and one soon to be famous hole.  Also keep in mind that they been at this for months, and had reportedly already been communicating about the course with overseas advisors, and that CBM already had a long list of ideal holes he planned to incorporate into this course.

Given all of this, where specifically on this property was CBM planning to set aside land for the founders?  And if he was so planning, where all all these real estate lots now?

As to whether the 120 proves he was not interested in real estate, it does occur that a difference in the sites might have some bearing on it.

Of course the nature of the 120 acre site was the reason that CBM only attempted to buy 120 acres! He obviously thought that that land was such that he only needed 120 acres to build his ideal course, and he was willing to let housing and such take care of itself via outside interests.  He was trying to build a golf course, not start a real estate development.  That is my point.  Likewise, it was the nature of the NGLA site which lead him to purchase 205 acres.  He needed 205 acres for his ideal golf course.  Look at how closely the lines are drawn around the course.  Both were need driving purchases, and the need was golf, not real estate!

Of course, you could also argue that CBM dodged a bullet, not taking a smaller site in a real estate development in favor of a more secluded one, and perhaps saw the advantages at that time of being away in nature (some of his words from the documents) when playing golf. In short, he probably realized that an ideal golf course shouldn't be shoe horned in with housing.  So, you may be right that any real housing went away at the very beginning of buying this site, although CBM did mention the surplus land in 1912, albeit, to be used as the Founders wished, and even the tone )this turned out to be true" does tell us he may have been skeptical or wary of his ability to pull that off while still building the ideal golf course.

This is a very good point, and one that cuts directly against Mike's latest wild goose chase.   CBM was very much attracted to and appreciated the secluded nature of the site. "When playing golf you want to be alone with nature." Given how CBM described even the early routing of the course, it is really absurd to think that CBM was going to try and cram 60 residential lots on to this site.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

David,

Regarding CBM's intentions for providing a real estate component on the current site, why would he say in 1912 that there is extra land but the Founders haven't yet determined what to do with it? Why would he identify the Founders as the decision makers for that land if it wasn't to be their's specifically as opposed to the Board of Directors or the membership in total?

Jim,  I don't know the details of NGLA's membership/partnership agreement, but it looks to me like the majority of the power rested with the founders and not the associate members. For example, if I recall correctly only the founders voted approving the sale of memberships.  So it doesn't seem a stretch to leave decisions such as land use to the founders as opposed to the associate memberships.  Some clubs are still structured between members who have a voice in such decisions and those who don't.  

So it seems that the reason is that the founders controlled the surplus land was because that is the nature of the deal he struck with them when they signed on.  If they was any surplus land, it was theirs to do with as they decided.  As I have said before, had they wanted to try to build houses between the golf holes I suppose they could have tried to force that, provided that they did not impinge on CBM's golf course. For that matter, as stakeholders they may have been able to plow under the golf course and turn the whole thing into a real estate development. But whatever their rights under their agreement, CBM did not go out and intentionally carve out a real estate component on this property.  He bought the land he needed for his course.   Whatever scraps were left over went to the founders to do with as they pleased.

Let me ask you the same questions I have asked the others?  If CBM intended to include a real estate component on this particular property, then where, exactly, was it to be located?    If in 1912, the "surplus land" was intended to be used for real estate, then where are these lots now?