Jeff, Continuing on to your other comments . . .
My take is that in January-March 1907,
CBM and committee finalized the routing.
They then told a surveyor to mark the boundaries, perhaps 150 feet off the proposed centerlines they had staked out.
That came out to more like 180 acres over 110 acres.
CBM may have considered reducing the golf course, but it was more important than the leftover land, so he kept it as designed.
He then allocated the remaining 25 acres to hit the 205 total contracted for near current 17 for Founders land. Is it any coincidence that it is on an existing (albeit then unimproved) road with some water view, which would be best for lots?
He may have contacted some founders, we do not know, but he obviously felt comfortable with a much reduced Founders parcel.
First, do you really think they were out there in the middle of winter planning? I can't say for certain, but I'd be very surprised if we ever find proof that a lot of field work was taking place during the winter. It doesn't seem like much happened during the winter in places like Southampton.
Second, and more importantly, I don't think the stuff about coming up with a 180 acre golf course then adding 25 acres to get to 205 makes any sense whatsoever. The entire east side of the border was locked. CBM had already described it by December 1906. The only wiggle room was on the west side of the property. Look at the border on the west side. It is drawn to fit the golf course. There is no place where he added in an additional 25 Acres to get to 205. Any extra land was either on the locked side or in between holes.
You don't really think that the developer was going to let CBM carve out little inaccessible islands (or donuts as you guys have called them) of land, do you?
This is why I keep imploring everyone to look at the maps. There was no extra land. CBM tailored the border to fit with the golf course. This is what CBM told us he would do in December 1906. He said nothing about Founder's lots, and no room for them anyway.
In some ways, this recalls the Merion debate, in which you seemed pretty certain that CBM had routed the course after a quick visit in June, despite writings saying otherwise. I believe in both cases, finalizing the routing simply took more time than you imagine. I don't believe the routing was completed prior to purchase, even if they had found enough good holes in singles to know they wanted that land.
Congratulations, Jeff. You've managed to grossly mischaracterize my understanding of the creation of two courses in one paragraph. So as to not get off track, I'll ignore it, but in the future please don't try to characterize my position on NGLA, Merion, or any other course. You get in wrong every time.
So what leaps of faith do we take? That the suggestion of housing was in fact the most logical use at the time and was the real plan? Believing that no one would send out surveyors to get those exact acreages prior to purchase and finalizing the routing? (If they did not, how would CBM know he had 205 acres in Dec 1906?)
I have no idea what you are asking here, but if you are asking where I think you are wrong, let me provide a few ideas:
1. You misdated your timeline, as I explained in my previous post. You pushed
2. You and Mike are assuming that CBM came in to the project thinking he was going to subdivide 90 acres of housing. I think this idea (if it ever was one) was already dead at the time CBM had previously tried to buy 120 acres of property.
3. If it wasn't dead then, it would have certainly died when CBM determined to purchase land from an active real estate development targeting CBM's potential members for customers.
In other words you guys have erroneously assumed your conclusion (that CBM wanted to include 90 acres of housing at the NGLA) and then mischaracterized the timing to make it seem more plausible than it really is.