[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

If you consider longer true water frontage inferior, that is.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Re post #176 to Mike,

We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades.   We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.

That's NOT true.
And, you know that's not true.

Perhaps you should read "Colonizing Southampton" by David Goddard.  He has a lot of information about the development (or lack thereof) of the Shinnecock Hills.  What Mike wrote is true.

No, it's not.

Perhaps you can explain how guests, traveling by car, accessed the Shinnecock Inn, if there were no roads servicing it.
The North Highway in particular I believe..

Do you not recall the advertisement from the Shinnecock Inn that David Moriarty or someone else posted, wherein the advertisement showed motor cars and stated that the completed highway led to the front door.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Nice series of posts.   Thanks for the additional clarifying information and it's good to see this thread proceeding on a factual, not fantastical basis.  

We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades.   We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.

That's NOT true.
And, you know that's not true.

Patrick,

As Bryan has pointed out, what I wrote above is factually correct.

NO, it's NOT.
 

Please take another look at the 1904 map and tell me what's missing on the northern side of the canal.  

I'm sure you'll note that there is no bridge yet to provide access to the north side as there is today with the Sunrise Highway (Route 27).  
In fact, Route 27 wasn't even conceived of until the late 20s and it was years later before it finally opened.

Mike, the bridge in 1904 was south of the RR tracks, but the road shifted north to the Old North Hwy as soon as you crossed the bridge.
How do you think guests in motor cars drove to the Shinnecock Inn ?  

So, it seems that when I was ridiculed a few years back for suggesting some possible sites CBM first considered that had today's Route 27 running through them it really was no obstacle to CBM at all because it simply didn't exist at that time.  

Not today's Rt 27, but, the Old North Highway

I'm glad we finally have that matter cleared up, even if you'll never admit it.    

I'd prefer to not admit that you're wrong



Incidentally, the Olmsted/Vaux Plan did propose a bridge be built across the northern portion of the Shinnecock Canal so your confusion as well as others in relying on that plan (which was never realized as the company went bankrupt in the early 20s) as reflective of reality in the early days of NGLA is somewhat understandable.   Would you like for me to find out when that northern bridge was actually built?  

The date is irrelevant.
As soon as motorists crossed the canal they could take one of several routes, the south route, the north route or the mid-route.

The location of the bridge had nothing to do with the highway patterns east of the canal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Move it a little further east.

Thanks


Patrick,

Here you go!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

The only problem with your topo is that the road labeled "White's Lane" isn't "White's Lane"

It's the private driveway leading to the NGLA clubhouse.

You should be more careful with what you rely on for your information.

For those interested in these sort of things, Suffolk County has a pretty nice GIS Viewer with 10 foot contours at http://gis2.suffolkcountyny.gov/gisviewer/

Here's a small sample.

[Rich Goodale]

"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."

George Orwell

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Again you post with no real information (although I agree White's Lane is for some reason mislabeled) but just refuting other people without really giving any facts as to why.......other than using yourself as a source.  Its hard to take you seriously if you take this conversation seriously.  I am borderline on both.......

[MCirba]

Patrick,

Timing is everything here.

CBM made his offer for 120 acres near the Shinneocock Canal in the late 1905, early 1906 timeframe.

The Shinnecock Inn was built in 1907.   Please re-read what the accounts said about the roads and accessibility to the area in April of 1908 a few years post Macdonald's original offer after the Inn burned.






The section of the North Highway that was completed in 1907 at a cost of $11,000 and gifted to the city of Southampton as a goodwill gesture would have provided the route to the Inn, but it was only the branch coming off the completed (improved=passable by auto) main road seen on the map below.   None of this had anything to do with the land over by the canal that CBM was considering in 1905-06 as there were no roads passable by automobile in that section at that time.

If you visually cross the bridge on the main road across the Shinnecock Canal and continue on that road eastward, careful not to detour off on any of those sandy ruts shown on the dotted lines where you'll likely be digging out or left for dead, I'm pretty sure you can see what was done and when.     I'm sure someone more artistic than me with photoshop can map it out for you otherwise.   Did AAA exist back then?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think it's safe to say that CBM didn't design and construct his golf course without giving any thought to siting his clubhouse.

I think it's safe to say that the lack of funds delayed constructing his clubhouse.

I think it's safe to say that CBM wouldn't site and construct a clubhouse that couldn't be accessed by car/road.

I think it's safe to say that the 205 acres CBM purchased, was land locked at the south end.

I think it's safe to say that CBM recognized the convenience of using the recently built Shinnecock Inn as a temporary clubhouse.

I think it's safe to say that CBM wasn't an arsonist.
Thus, the burning of the Shinnecock Inn was an unexpected surprise to CBM.

CBM states that it was the burning down of the Shinnecock Inn that was the impetus for him to build his clubhouse.

Regarding the current clubhouse site, he states: "... for today we have an unexcelled site"
So, did the site suddenly become "unexcelled" only after the Shinnecock Inn burned to the ground.
Or, was the site always "unexcelled" ?
Did CBM only become aware of the "unexcelled" site after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, or was he aware of that site
as he routed and designed holes # 1 and 18 ?

CBM further states: "There are no more beautiful golfing vistas in the WORLD than those from the National Golf Club..."

So, did he have a moment of clarity, only after the fire trucks pulled up to the Shinnecock Inn ?
Did he have to wait until the smoke cleared his eyes before he had his epiphany ?

Like any intelligent person, especially one so studied, did he recognize the majesty of the current site from the get go.

Or, was he weighing his options ?
Let's see, shall I choose.......
1  A mundane site in the shadows of the Shinnecock Clubhouse
2  A majestic site unrivaled in golf, sitting high upon a bluff overlooking Sebonic Bay

My reading of his words is that when the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he gave some fleeting thought to constructing another temporary clubhouse, for convenience sake, as he still had the parking lot of the SI close by, but, instead, decided on siting his clubhouse where it was always intended.

Another quote from CBM is found on page 191 of "Scotland's Gift" where he states that "The Sahara of the Royal St George's at Sandwich I found in OUR SECOND HOLE.

Now, if you've played NGLA, you realize that the tee for the second hole is but a wedge from the current clubhouse.

This also leads me to believe that CBM ALWAYS intended the clubhouse to be sited exactly where it is.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Again you post with no real information (although I agree White's Lane is for some reason mislabeled) but just refuting other people without really giving any facts as to why.......other than using yourself as a source.  Its hard to take you seriously if you take this conversation seriously.  I am borderline on both.......

Jeff,

"for some reason" ?  ?  ?

That's it ?  "For some reason ?

Why didn't you take Bryan to task for posting a gross misrepresentation.

After all, you're the one clamoring for facts aren't you  ?

I really don't care if you take me seriously, or not.

I've provided facts, you just want to dismiss them due to your inherent bias.

And, that's OK, I understand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Timing is everything here.

CBM made his offer for 120 acres near the Shinneocock Canal in the late 1905, early 1906 timeframe.

The Shinnecock Inn was built in 1907.   Please re-read what the accounts said about the roads and accessibility to the area in April of 1908 a few years post Macdonald's original offer after the Inn burned.

The section of the North Highway that was completed in 1907 at a cost of $11,000 and gifted to the city of Southampton as a goodwill gesture would have provided the route to the Inn, but it was only the branch coming off the completed (improved=passable by auto) main road seen on the map below.   None of this had anything to do with the land over by the canal that CBM was considering in 1905-06 as there were no roads passable by automobile in that section at that time.

Mike,

The 1904 map shows roads galore.

My postings have nothing to do with your discussion/debate with David Moriarty and the canal.

Please post the advertisement for the Shinnecock Inn.

And please shift the 1904 map further East.

Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."

George Orwell

Or a country club's minutes, depending on who you are and what you may be trying to prove or disprove......

Patrick,

I still see a lot of your opinions about what it is "safe to say" presented as facts.......also, I think you show the greatest bias by insulting others, assuming a lot, and twisting facts to fit.  I will agree he wasn't an arsonist, but wonder if his famous "hot head" may have sparked a flame!

All that said, I can understand your hypothesis, and how you read that from the often odd wording of our forefathers. There are always inconsistencies, including "For Today, we have a unexcelled site... Your first thought was that he had just discovered it, mine was why not say "We have always had an unexcelled site.....which we are now using."  We just can't know how seriously he considered it early.  Maybe it seemed out of reach in those early days, maybe it was never considered.

It could very well be that his CH with great views was considered for sometime in the far distant future, with the idea that it would be a while until it was financially practical, and the routing was conceived partially to accommodate both.  The fire forced their hand much earlier than they would have liked.  I have seen some of my own projects planned (or evolved) the same way because finances are always tight. 

So, in that sense, you are entitled to stick to your story, even if not really proven in the record.  I simply believe you use the wrong tactics to justify your visions.

(Separate topic, but I wonder if for a moment at least, ANGC considered what the routing might be if the old plantation house hadn't been used as the CH)

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."

George Orwell

Or a country club's minutes, depending on who you are and what you may be trying to prove or disprove......

Patrick,

I still see a lot of your opinions about what it is "safe to say" presented as facts.......

Jeff,

Than it should be very easy for you to refute those opinions.

Absent any refutation, I'll take it that you accept them as factual.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics.  Gotta ask why?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics.  Gotta ask why?

Jeff

YOU stated that none of my opinions contained facts.

I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.

How is that argumentative ?

You're the one who initiated the challenge, not me.

I'm just responding to your whining which has gone on for years.

Would you cite where my opinions are absent any facts ?

If not, please, just stop whining.

[JC Jones]

Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics.  Gotta ask why?

Jeff

YOU stated that none of my opinions contained facts.

I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.

How is that argumentative ?

You're the one who initiated the challenge, not me.

I'm just responding to your whining which has gone on for years.

Would you cite where my opinions are absent any facts ?

If not, please, just stop whining.

Pat,

This video would be good for you to watch.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnFnWWAnlkw

[Jeff_Brauer]

To be honest Pat, about all you would need to do is provide more flesh out of what you claim in not refutable info from NGLA as to when and how much land NGLA owned behind 9 green.

And, perhaps be sure you know what you are talking about on the road situation in 1904, because that seems as if you expect us to accept your logic as to which roads were in place and which roads weren't, while you won't accept Mikes similar logic (but different conclusions)

I don't believe I have whined a bit, but you can't help yourself from insulting anyone who even mildly questions you.  At least, you haven't in the dozen years we have both been here.

[MCirba]

Pat,

Here's the June 2, 1907 advertisement original produced by Joe Bausch on a previous related thread.   You'll note that the date is in the same year that the North Highway was being made passable for automobile traffic, at least the area near the Shinnecock Inn.   The previous articles provide some idea of traffic volume, which was about as frequent as me getting up and down.   

As far as moving the map "east", please tell me what you're trying to see and I'll figure out the best way to do that.   Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I still see a lot of your opinions about what it is "safe to say" presented as facts.......

Then tell us which opinions are absent any facts.


also, I think you show the greatest bias by insulting others, assuming a lot, and twisting facts to fit.

Then it should be easy for you to cite the allegations you've made in the above sentence.
And, it should be easy for you to cite where I've twisted the facts.
Please, have at it. 

I will agree he wasn't an arsonist, but wonder if his famous "hot head" may have sparked a flame!

His "famous hot head" got him thrown out of Shinnecock.
Do you really believe, with his ego, his hot head and his prior incident at Shinnecock that he'd site his clubhouse in the shadow of Shinnecock's clubhouse, with the Shinnecock members looking down at his creation ?

Be honest, do you really think CBM would choose the site "near" the SI, a mundane site at best, or a world class site ?

All that said, I can understand your hypothesis, and how you read that from the often odd wording of our forefathers.

Thanks

There are always inconsistencies, including "For Today, we have a unexcelled site...

Your first thought was that he had just discovered it, mine was why not say "We have always had an unexcelled site.....which we are now using." 

That wasn't my first thought.
How on earth could you come to that conclusion.

We just can't know how seriously he considered it early. 

Jeff, you can't be serious.
This was a man who was intelligent, educated and highly observant.
Do you think that he couldn't differentiate between the two sites ?

And, while you're at it, tell us how he could possibly access the two sites ?

Maybe it seemed out of reach in those early days, maybe it was never considered.

"Out of reach" ?
In 1904 Sebonac Inlet Rd led right to the front entrance of NGLA
How is that "out of reach"
Now who's grasping at straws and offering opinions absent any facts ?

You're guilty of what you've been accusing me of doing.
What a joke

It could very well be that his CH with great views was considered for sometime in the far distant future, with the idea that it would be a while until it was financially practical, and the routing was conceived partially to accommodate both. 

We know that the clubhouse was intended for the future due to lack of funds.

But, tell us, since NGLA didn't own the land between the golf course and RT 27 (North Highway) how were the members going to access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn, once the Shinnecock Inn burned down ?

The fire forced their hand much earlier than they would have liked. 


Agreed, I think that was one of the opinions I presented which was based upon the facts, an opinion that you criticized me for

I have seen some of my own projects planned (or evolved) the same way because finances are always tight. 

So, in that sense, you are entitled to stick to your story, even if not really proven in the record. 

You may not be aware of it, but, there's something called: "circumstantial evidence"
Evidence that would lead a prudent man to a prudent conclusion.
When you add up the facts and circumstances, where else would he site his clubhouse ?

I simply believe you use the wrong tactics to justify your visions.

Oh, so now we're getting back to a personality clash......... again.
What tactics ?
Your sentence above reinforces my belief that we have and continue to have a clash of personalities.
You don't like me and I really don't care if you don't like me.

If my facts are in error, point them out, just like I pointed out that Bryan's reliance on the topo identifying "White's Lane" was factually wrong.
Why didn't you take Bryan to task for presenting false evidence.
Why didn't you criticize him for failing to do his due diligence, for his failure to present the facts ?

You're guilty of having an inherent bias, that's why.

And, stop whining.

(Separate topic, but I wonder if for a moment at least, ANGC considered what the routing might be if the old plantation house hadn't been used as the CH)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Again with the argumentative, juvenile tactics.  Gotta ask why?

Jeff

YOU stated that none of my opinions contained facts.

I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.

How is that argumentative ?

You're the one who initiated the challenge, not me.

I'm just responding to your whining which has gone on for years.

Would you cite where my opinions are absent any facts ?

If not, please, just stop whining.

Pat,

This video would be good for you to watch.  


JC,

I'm not interested in watching UTube videos, but, if you have any information that will refute what I've stated, please post it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnFnWWAnlkw

[Patrick_Mucci]

To be honest Pat, about all you would need to do is provide more flesh out of what you claim in not refutable info from NGLA as to when and how much land NGLA owned behind 9 green.

Jeff,

I'm not bound by your schedule.
In due time.

And, perhaps be sure you know what you are talking about on the road situation in 1904, because that seems as if you expect us to accept your logic as to which roads were in place and which roads weren't, while you won't accept Mikes similar logic (but different conclusions)

Would you cite where Mike and I have a difference of opinion on the roads.
I think we both accept the 1904 map as reasonably accurate.

I don't believe I have whined a bit,

That's part of the problem, whiners never admit that they're whiners.
It's like slow golfers, they never admit that they're slow

but you can't help yourself from insulting anyone who even mildly questions you. 

That's not true, it's just typical of your whining nature.

Questions don't bother me in the least, I love addressing them.

It's the tone of the question and/or criticism that fuels my response.
When you criticize/attack me, especially for off topic issues, non-relevant issues, do you really expect me to ignore you ?
I get such delight in responding to whiners, in a manner that will produce more whining, that like Clint, it makes my day.

At least, you haven't in the dozen years we have both been here.

Well, just think of it as the "dozen year war", kinda like the 100 year war, only, 88 short.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Thanks.

But, there was another advertisement, one showing the building, maybe Joe has that one too.
I think the other advertisement also mentioned the highways and garaging..

In addition, did you read the ad Joe provided, especially the part in the second paragraph below the BOLD words "Shinnecock Hills",

Where it says: "A complete system of good roads for driving, riding and motoring"

Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn

You don't suppose that those cars were airlifted in, do you ?



Pat,

Here's the June 2, 1907 advertisement original produced by Joe Bausch on a previous related thread.   You'll note that the date is in the same year that the North Highway was being made passable for automobile traffic, at least the area near the Shinnecock Inn.   The previous articles provide some idea of traffic volume, which was about as frequent as me getting up and down.   

As far as moving the map "east", please tell me what you're trying to see and I'll figure out the best way to do that.   Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Let me help clarify the issue/s for you.

Instead of dealing with the topics/issues being discussed, you chime in with complaints about me and my presentation/s.

Then, when I respond in kind, you cry "foul"

You're like the child who kills her parents and then begs for mercy from the court because she's an orphan.

Stick to the issue/s and leave the bias and angst for someone else

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I have dealt with the issues, you have not.  So many of your posts are aimed at discussion of your perceived failings of other posters, not facts on YOUR OWN THREAD.  Very infantile of you. Getting into another petty fight is pointless, something I apparently need to relearn from kindergarten.

Not only do you argue for the sake of arguing by insulting and accusing others of doing just what you are really doing, you is you demand certain things from others, but not yourself.  For instance.

Jeff,

I'm not bound by your schedule.
In due time.

And yet, my only two choices are to refute you now (more completely, with more facts, whatever) or accept you are right.  Those certainly are NOT my only two choices.  You present a false dichotomy intended only to win your argument at any possible cost of your dignity.

I will wait until you decide to present on "your schedule" any more documents of interest.  No point in responding any more to your endless windbaggery. Sorry I let you drag me down in the Southhampton mud, apparently at a place where the road is STILL not improved!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I have dealt with the issues, you have not. 

No you haven't.

Did you call out Bryan Izatt for posting incorrect exhibits ?

No, you didn't.

WHY NOT ?

You are interested in the facts aren't you ?
You claimed to be when you directed your posts to me.

Or, are you a whining hypocrit ?

So many of your posts are aimed at discussion of your perceived failings of other posters, not facts on YOUR OWN THREAD. 

Please identify them

Very infantile of you. Getting into another petty fight is pointless, something I apparently need to relearn from kindergarten.

Jeff, Perhaps you've forgotten, but, you started this little conflict with another one of your hissy fits.

Not only do you argue for the sake of arguing by insulting and accusing others of doing just what you are really doing, you is you demand certain things from others, but not yourself.  

Have an interpreter decipher what you're trying to say in the convoluted sentence above.


For instance.

Jeff,

I'm not bound by your schedule.
In due time.


Both statements are true and accurate.
I'm not bound by your schedule and I'll produce the exact date in due time.
I know that the land was purchased after CBM's death, but, don't have the exact date at my disposal at this time.
Ergo, I'lll produce it in due time.

Sorry if that offends you, but, when you're a whiner, I guess not getting instant gratification fuels the whining.

And yet, my only two choices are to refute you now (more completely, with more facts, whatever) or accept you are right.

Those aren't your "only two choices".
But, I'll leave it up to your whining brain to figure out the others. 

Those certainly are NOT my only two choices.  
You present a false dichotomy intended only to win your argument at any possible cost of your dignity.

I made a statement of fact.
NGLA did not own the land behind the 9th green when the SI burned down.
They acquired the land long afterwards.
As to the exact date, I'll get that, in due time.
Sorry if that triggers more whining on your part.

I will wait until you decide to present on "your schedule" any more documents of interest. 

It's not a matter of when I "decide" to post the date, it's a matter of the time it will take me to get the exact date.
I'm sorry if you're inconvenienced by having to wait, but, obtaining the exact date isn't amongst my first fifty (50) priorities in life.
You're just a whiner if you don't get your way.

No point in responding any more to your endless windbaggery.
Sorry I let you drag me down in the Southhampton mud, apparently at a place where the road is STILL not improved!

In addition to being a whiner, you're a liar.
It was YOU who started this.
But, like all whiners, you start something, get your nose bloodied, and cry foul.

Stop whining and grow up.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()