Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[Sven Nilsen]

The more interesting questions to me are: why did he feel the need to propose a trivial possible incentive to such a wealthy clientele; and, why was he promoting the project so heavily through the media when he only needed 70 wealthy men to step up to set up a private club? 

Bryan:

Was CBM promoting, or was this a case of a golf mad press taking it on themselves to cover the project  As I mentioned earlier, I don't think CBM was using the press to recruit guys like Frick, Vanderbilt and Harriman, guys he probably saw once a week over at GCGC.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Along with the founders, weren't there to be some 200 associate members?

There were going to be 200 associate members, and as you should know the funds generated by their signing on was going to be used for the clubhouse, when built. 

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Rt 27 didn't exist until the late 1920's so it's hard to say that the triangle separated NGLA from it in 1906-07. If you look at the map a few posts above, the 1904 roads are superimposed on the current aerial.  A yellow unimproved road runs and splits between the SI and NGLA and possibly runs through part of the triangle.  The road, such as it was was probably owned by the Realty Co.  Maybe it had been dedicated to the county or maybe not.

So now you agree with me that the road was owned by the real estate company, and therefore not available to CBM for his clubhouse.

The Realty Co was building the Inn and they sold CBM the land he wanted for NGLA.  We don't know if they subdivided out the SI property as it is today and left themselves the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the their larger holding or how or when they created the triangle property.

But, it's clear that CBM didn't own that parcel nor did he own the parcel that constituted the SI, ergo he had NO access to the course from the South side.

If the triangle was sitting unused, it had lots of company.  Sales of lots in the Shinnecock Hills was slow for years.

Patrick's anonymous source appears to be correct that CBM did not buy the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the original deal.

Does that surprise you ?
So, I'm right again, and you were wrong ................. again. 



At the time of the original deal in late '06 - early '07 obviously CBM didn't think he needed it nor that it inhibited the development of NGLA or the Shinnecock Inn nor that it interfered with the existing road (such as they was) structure.
 

Pat,

Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27.
My anonymous source is well informed on all things NGLA.

What we don't know is: had the SI not burned down, what plans did they have for that parcel of property.
Another facility ? housing for staff ? a garage ? parking lot ? pool ? tennis courts ? A residence ?

CBM was land locked at the south end of the property.
Ergo, without purchasing more land, he couldn't build his clubhouse "near" the 9th green.

Nor would he want to given his relationship with Shinnecock, the obvious benefits of siting the clubhouse on the bluff and that fact that he left a significant doughnut hole on land perfect for golf

Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened.  

Here's the problem I have with you, your vision is myopic because you won't take your focus off of your goal of disproving my premise..
Obviously they had a purpose for that parcel of land.
The SI was brand new, so their plans for the SI were in the formative stages.
I listed some viable alternatives regarding the use of the land
But, the fact remains, that they did NOT sell the land to CBM and as such, he was landlocked at the south end.

Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.

I'm sure that there was movement in the roadways as the area developed.

But, let me ask you this.

WHY would the burning down of the SI cause CBM to relocate his clubhouse ?  ?  ?

There's NO "cause and effect"

The ultimate location of his clubhouse had NOTHING to do with the SI.

Pretend for a second that the SI never burned down.
Do you really think he would have sited his clubhouse next to it ?

Not in a million years.

He always intended to site his clubhouse exactly where it is today.

[DMoriarty]

Mike. CBM told us why they didn't need housing.  1) There was an Inn.  2) Building lots were available.  Both were in the giant adjacent development.

Of course, anyone who wants to believe that they were out there surveying and clearing property in the spring and summer of 1906 on land they had no legal claim to until December of that year is welcome to do so.

Again with the ambiguous straw man.  You are the only one who thinks they were clearing the land before they owned it.  I assume they didn't clear it until they took possession in the spring of 1907. They didn't own the property until spring. Again . . .

1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?

2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?

It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906.

Another straw man. By CBM's account they were a long ways into deciding on which holes to feature before the option was obtained.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Rt 27 didn't exist until the late 1920's so it's hard to say that the triangle separated NGLA from it in 1906-07. If you look at the map a few posts above, the 1904 roads are superimposed on the current aerial.  A yellow unimproved road runs and splits between the SI and NGLA and possibly runs through part of the triangle.  The road, such as it was was probably owned by the Realty Co.  Maybe it had been dedicated to the county or maybe not.

The Realty Co was building the Inn and they sold CBM the land he wanted for NGLA.  We don't know if they subdivided out the SI property as it is today and left themselves the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the their larger holding or how or when they created the triangle property.

If the triangle was sitting unused, it had lots of company.  Sales of lots in the Shinnecock Hills was slow for years.

Patrick's anonymous source appears to be correct that CBM did not buy the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the original deal.  At the time of the original deal in late '06 - early '07 obviously CBM didn't think he needed it nor that it inhibited the development of NGLA or the Shinnecock Inn nor that it interfered with the existing road (such as they was) structure.
 

Pat,

Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27. Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened.  Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.

Bryan,

Its a long thread, but I am sure I read somewhere that SHPB agreed to improve the road from the train station to the Inn specifically for them.  If it extended beyond the Inn, it probably wasn't improved.

I agree that the Rt 27 wasn't built until later, and see lots of roadway realignments in the various maps over the years.  I merely guessed that the regular boundary behind 9 was meant to tie to the road (CBM was smart, and as Pat says, no one smart would land lock themselves) but at some point things changed.   If he was land locked when the Inn burnt down, there is a slight possibility that it was a factor in moving the clubhouse location.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike. CBM told us why they didn't need housing.  1) There was an Inn.  2) Building lots were available.  Both were in the giant adjacent development.

Of course, anyone who wants to believe that they were out there surveying and clearing property in the spring and summer of 1906 on land they had no legal claim to until December of that year is welcome to do so.

Again with the ambiguous straw man.  You are the only one who thinks they were clearing the land before they owned it.  I assume they didn't clear it until they took possession in the spring of 1907. They didn't own the property until spring. Again . . .

1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?

2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?

It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906.

Another straw man. By CBM's account they were a long ways into deciding on which holes to feature before the option was obtained.

I would surmise that the need to leave Founders land was part of that legally binding solicitation letter. Which is why he mentioned it in 1912. The housing was a non binding suggestion, echoed by Whigham as late as March 1906.

I basically believe that the idea of housing died either:

About July, when CBM first expressed interest to SHPB in the land.  When asked why he wanted 205 acres this time, and he mentions housing opportunities for members, they tell him no.

Or, at least when CBM got into his October negotiations to option and purchase the land if it had escaped their attention earlier.  

He may have held on to that residential notion until those points, perhaps surprised that the Realty Co. would put limitations on his proposal.

Of course, he may have just changed his mind, hearing from members throughout the period that they had no need for one acre home sites.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

In waist high brambles on a property only navigable on horseback  they had no legal claim to, there is no way to get an accurate topo needed for the level of specificity (2 to 3 foot levels) CBM was looking for without first clearing the property.  Who was going to pay for that without a deal in place?

Mike,

I will disagree on two counts here.

First, since it was reported that a contour map had been made by October, we have to presume one was made. Not every newspaper reporter could have been a moron getting everything wrong.

Second, I have surveyed through brambles and even mature forest.  It involves cutting branches out of the line of sight until you can read the grade on the survey pole. With a 100' grid, it is also sometimes possible to get a spot shot from another point and angle than you originally intended, that doesn't have a blocked view.

It would seem surveying on someone else's land is odd, but CBM had dealt with the Realty Co. before, they know he was serious via the previous offer, and since he apparently paid Raynor (pg 202-3 of Scotlands Gift) himself, it cost them nothing, and if he didn't buy the property, then at least they would have the development info they needed for the next potential buyer or their own development, so it was a no lose situation for them.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

I appreciate your professional insight, thanks.

All,

I have no idea if this is representative but here's a picture I took of a vintage photo from George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf".   That same angle photo from an even earlier pic appears in "Scotland's Gift" but that pic I took is too blurry to post here.   Perhaps someone with better skills can do so but to me it looks to be about the same height and thickness of growth.

I think it likely gives some idea of what the land off the golf course looked like as described by Macdonald, Travis, and others reporting later.   I'm not sure but given the surveying method Jeff just described, it looks like it would have been a bear to do.  

If they did it that summer of 1906, I hope they brought the mosquito nets!  




I recall an old aerial of NGLA floating around here at one point.   It would be interesting to review to see how thick the growth was on adjoining land.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is no conflict.  You are making one up.  

And you are making up the requirement/need for a 2-3 foot topo at this point. That's not what the article said, it is your artifial requirement.

David,

See my previous post. I think CBM would want a 2 foot topo and possible boundary lines to design the course, and hired Raynor first for some general surveying of potential property line, and then he decided (or Raynor the surveyor/engineer convinced him) of the advisability of a contour map.  And, I believe this all happened somewhere before October 1906, since it was reported in the newspaper that it had been done.

I am checking a few sources to see how long this might have taken. Certainly brambles and hills take longer to survey than an open farm field.  

BTW, I like the idea of gleaming the blueprint for ideas on the design process.  I haven't really done that, but my rapid reaction is that if they had the contour map, contour lines would have been added to the plan.  Does that make it an early study map, showing the property lines and green sites they had preliminarily selected?  Just a thought, probably wrong.

Mike,

As to those pre 1900 paintings - I have seen a lot of sites get overgrown in less than ten years!  Someone will probably check the weather in those years to see if higher than normal rainfall suggests more growth. And, we can't dismiss a bit of artistic license on the painter.  Obviously, his subjects weren't going to picnic in the overgrown areas......plus, the growth would have likely occurred in valleys, and that painting seems to be taken in the drier hills near the water.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

George Bahto told me that those hash marks you see on the blueprint running down the center of each hole were elevation numbers.   Would that make sense?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906.

Another straw man. By CBM's account they were a long ways into deciding on which holes to feature before the option was obtained.

David,

I am not so sure.

In the March 1906 letter from London, CBM says no design takes place until all his vaunted committee is consulted.
The October article says he has just sent contour maps to those committee members
The December article says that by now, most of the committed (maybe all) have seen the site.

If we take CBM at his words there, then we can't believe he was well on his way to design before the option.  It appears his first step - consulting the committee - didn't occur until after October.

And, as in other posts:

If we read what he says in SG literally (i.e., he found 6 holes.....and not mentioning "placing" said holes until after he mentions the Nov 1906 option) the design work started after the option.

I believe the surveying and contour maps took at least a month, maybe two, and I don't see your timeline accounting for that time.

I find it hard to believe CBM ordered Raynor to do a contour map (certainly no earlier than July) and ignore it, starting to route with out it.  I doubt he could complete his routing without a map of boundaries and contours. I do agree with you that he could tentatively set some basic boundaries on earlier maps.

I don't believe he was actively routing before consulting his committee, as it would just piss them off, don't you think?  What is the point of touting this committee and then not using it? I will grant with CBM's ego, I can envision him outvoting them by 1 to 7 in a few cases!   beyond his reconnaissance rides, and finding a few holes.  

Many of your "logical interpretations" don't seem to fit all the known facts from the record, and thus, can reasonably be disagreed with.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:

Two things:

1.  Why did CBM need to know the boundaries?  It was at his discretion to set them within the land at their disposal.  If anything, Raynor was brought in to craft those boundary lines around the course.

2.  I see the committee more as a white wash.  You go to the investors, tell them that so and so experts will weigh in, giving them the thought that all of the leading minds in golf design will have their say.  But is there any doubt that the design was almost all CBM?  He already had his list of 18+ holes he wanted to use, and I doubt that the committee did much more than make a few suggestions.

Sven

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,

I think he started to narrow things down soon after seeing the property and deciding it was what he wanted.  I actually am leaning David's way a bit, thinking it was before October when he was reasonably sure he had a workable parcel. (but not as early as David for reasons stated)

He had to fit some practical limitations in his 205 acre maximum, including clubhouse, using his found holes, getting to the bay, etc.  With the length more or less set, he had to sort of accept a certain width as a practical matter.

Patrick asked why he wouldn't go over to the hillier Sebonac land, and I think that is the answer.  It would take him away from those first holes he wanted, some of which were pretty far east (cape hole).  Even with wiggle room, the 205 limit just means he couldn't have it all without leaving more donut holes for the developer, which I doubt was in the plan since he wanted to be at one with nature.

I agree that CBM took it over and the committee probably diminished in importance.  That said, after a few years of newspaper articles touting that plan, even up to October,  I believe he would start out at least making a show of it.  Unless those guys were going to be on site from October to May, they couldn't possibly have been in on all the detail decisions. 

Besides, it may only read that they were going to help select the templates, which seems to have occurred in that October to December time frame when they got to the site with CBM.  Once CBM got that input, I agree he was probably on his own as project leader.

[MCirba]

I disagree about the Committee.

News reports in 1907 and 1908 through construction still named the Committee of Macdonald, Emmett, Whigham, and Travis consistently. 

In April of 1907 Walter Travis published a detailed article that told about the progress that was being made.   In 1914 Travis also claimed "For Posterity" that he was part of the group that selected some of the holes in the field.   Also, it's not like CBM had 18 actual golf holes already picked out but instead only tried a handful of reproductions with most of the rest just based on principles and what was suggested by the natural land.

An August 23, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle report talked about the ongoing work as follows;


 

[MCirba]

Here's the November 1914 snippet from Walter Travis in American Golfer, sometime after he had a falling out with both Macdonald and Emmet.




And a bit more on conditions encountered and the process from a 1909 article;

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

They make sense to me, but I can't pinpoint when they might have been made.

I do believe the background of photo you posted is more representative of the brambles CBM faced before clearing than a painting.

Jeff,

George Bahto told me that those hash marks you see on the blueprint running down the center of each hole were elevation numbers.   Would that make sense?

KE

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I stand corrected.  While the whole committee surely wasn't out there, it does appear the written record has some of them still quite interested in the final design starting in 1907.  Wonder why Travis didn't mention HJW in 1914?

Also, for more insight into the construction task, read the last little snippets about draining and filling 4 ft. deep depressions.  This was certainly not all a lay of the land design.  Also, noted in an article posted last night that the first version of the water green (now 13) was built too low, flooded during construction or soon thereafter, and was soon rebuilt.  They had their troubles, which is to be expected with a bunch of amateur engineers/landscapers focusing on golf, new to America.  I presume Payne and Raynor helped a lot in this regard.

BTW, I note that "in a general way, the planning of the course preceded clearing."  Which, fits the record, no matter whose timeline we use.  It also says changes were made along the way......sounds like the consulted Pete Dye or Tom Fazio.

I disagree about the Committee.

News reports in 1907 and 1908 through construction still named the Committee of Macdonald, Emmett, Whigham, and Travis consistently.  

In April of 1907 Walter Travis published a detailed article that told about the progress that was being made.   In 1914 Travis also claimed "For Posterity" that he was part of the group that selected some of the holes in the field.   Also, it's not like CBM had 18 actual golf holes already picked out but instead only tried a handful of reproductions with most of the rest just based on principles and what was suggested by the natural land.

An August 23, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle report talked about the ongoing work as follows;


  

[Sven Nilsen]

How many of CBM's ideal holes from his Jan. 1907 article are on the ground at NGLA?

He drove the design.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

I disagree about the Committee.

News reports in 1907 and 1908 through construction still named the Committee of Macdonald, Emmett, Whigham, and Travis consistently.  

In April of 1907 Walter Travis published a detailed article that told about the progress that was being made.   In 1914 Travis also claimed "For Posterity" that he was part of the group that selected some of the holes in the field.   Also, it's not like CBM had 18 actual golf holes already picked out but instead only tried a handful of reproductions with most of the rest just based on principles and what was suggested by the natural land.

An August 23, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle report talked about the ongoing work as follows;


  

Ironic that you state the articles consistently noted the big four, yet Emmet appears only as a founder in the article you included.

[Sven Nilsen]

I have no idea if this is representative but here's a picture I took of a vintage photo from George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf".  

Is there any date on this photo in EoG?

Sven

[Bryan Izatt]

Stop the presses. Hold the comments.  Mucci the magnificent has declared in purple prose that the blueprint is flawed.

It's not my blueprint.  It's Macdonald's.

Then it's flawed as are the conclusions you've based upon that blueprint.

and, that the unimproved roads are owned by the SI, and therefore unusable by NGLA.

Baloney, that road was the property of the SI and the company that owned the SI.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Since you are a now a multiple time serial failure on this point, let me say it again.


NGLA owned enough land south of the 9th green for his clubhouse.

The site south of the 9th green had access by the same unimproved road that the Shinnecock Inn did.

[Sven Nilsen]

Here is a fairly contemporaneous photo of the land (taken from the 1912 Southampton Magazine article on the course).

It isn't that far off from what is depicted in the paintings.

[MCirba]

Sven,

I didn't notice any but there is an earlier photo in Scotland's Gift of virtually the same thing that shows similar growt    Regarding the Committee, I do find it odd that Emmet isn't mentioned in that article when CBM mentioned him later, claiming to have "dropped" Travis at some point although he's clearly still involved late summer 08 and there is no contemporaneous evidence that he was dropped prior to opening that I'm aware of.  Regarding the Ideal Holes, CBM certainly drove the process but weren't the results a sort of consensus among experts here and abroad who were familiar with those holes?  This would have almost certainly included the men on his committee, even if CBM had final say.

[MCirba]

Bryan,

Knowing Pat, he'll just blame it on a rookie mistake by Raynor.