[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know if others were aware of this, but I was surprised to read this article from way back in 1923. It’s called “The Golf Course as a Community - The Increasing Cost of Suburban Acreage Has Made the Country Club the Advance Guard of the Home Seeker”.  The writer Louis G. Kibbe writes a kind of history of the country club, and of the urban-dwellers desire to get closer to nature and natural beauty. Here are just a couple of bits from a long article:

“In the attempt to satisfy the normal demand for a pretty country setting for outdoor sports and a gathering place for those seeking relaxation and a change from city environs, it was but natural that the most desirable sites should be chosen. This is in complete accord with the old fashioned picnic spirit, which could harmonize only with the picturesque beauties of nature. Thus it was that our country clubs early became identified with the choicest suburban sections. And as their popularity increased, transportation facilities became a potent influence in the selection of suitable sites so that they responded to the identical influences that govern the development of suburban home sites—ease of access and a pleasing topography.

As the popularity of golf increased, another factor was added that still further accentuated the demand for such sites, for your golfer insists on the best that nature affords in rugged beauty, combined with accessibility. Since everything is relative, it must be admitted that some fairish golf courses have been laid out on undesirable sites, from the standpoint of the golf expert. But it can be safely assumed that such sites were the best that the particular community afforded, thereby proving the rule by the exception. And it is a safe bet that the very place selected conformed to the ideas of the suburban homeseekers as to a suitable location for their country bungalows, cottages or estates.

This instinct to pre-empt the choicest acreage for the use of our play grounds seems to be inherent in us and parallels the instinct to seek the same sort of a location for our suburban home-sites. It is to be noted, however, that it is the spirit of play that becomes the pioneer, always followed —not preceded — by the homing instinct. Once more we must go back to the picnic for the basic inspiration — the instinct to seek a combination of natural beauty and seclusion for satisfying our normal demands for relaxation.

In addition to these forces of nature that have prompted the development of the most highly desirable sections as the centers of country club life, the ever increasing cost of suburban acreage and the mounting costs of construction ofcourses and clubhouses have combined to make our country clubs a sort of advance guard for the marching phalanx of suburban home builders.

Just as the more intrepid of our forefathers blazed a path into the wilds, to be followed by the timid, so do our country clubs pave the way for the development of suburban homes, only to be crowded and pushed on and on into the open spaces in the never tiring attempt to satisfy the inborn hunger for seclusion and natural beauty. It is the same old, never-ending battle between the pioneer and the mimic. And no sooner does the marching army of home builders surround and put to rout a country club than this insatiable hunger asserts itself by reaching out beyond the fringe of urban life to re-establish a play-ground in the open. "What ho," cry the builders, "the retreating enemy has pitched camp on yon lovely crest; forward, march!"—and the pursuit is on.

A veritable beauty spot of nature may lie neglected for years, unwooed and unnoticed by the nearby city dwellers. But let the natives sight thereon a rising cloud of dust as niblick bites into yielding sand, and immediately that bit of undulating terrain takes on a fascination that draws them as a magnet attracts old iron.”

Do you think the picture painted is correct? Do you think that in the early 20s golf course architecture/design itself was being changed and shaped by these same forces?  Any examples of great courses be so shaped? Or does this article mainly describe the functional and modest “golf communities” that were much the same now as then?

While this subject/thread might not be the best way into the subject, I've often wondered whether an emerging/re-emerging naturalism in golf course architecture (and a desire for it) had anything to do with the increasing urbanization of the American population. 

Peter     

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Interesting article, even if its poorly written and very repititious.  A USA Today editor could have that whittled down to 100 words or less!

I bascially read this as a justification for the housing developments to follow.  I don't know how many golf and housing developments there were, but here in DFW there are a few dating earlier - Rivercrest in FW and Dallas CC in Dallas to name two, but the  clubs weren't extensively included in the housing, and they were more core courses.

In 1930 or so, Augusta had Olmstead in to plan the community around the course (later dropped)  I think Olmstead worked in others. I think Tom Mac would probably know even more.

In Chicago, they followed the recommendations for siting for good transportation - many clubs are close to the commuter rail lines.  I think that was a more importrant issue than naturalism.  I know that rail lines and interurbans had often built parks on their lines as a way to encourage weekend business and this writer seems to be saying that golf and housing was replacing picnicking, which admittedly, doesn't seem active enough to please most people.   

I suppose it was natural for those who could afford it to basically build their own clubs to avoid the "rif raf" present in a public park.  I suppose it was and is also natural to build the highest end housing on nicely wooded tracts.  Even now, tract home builders look for open land - its easier to squeeze in smaller lots when you have less to work around.

As to his contention that the golf course would get priority on the best land, I certainly have never seen a lot of that.  The principal of putting the courses in flood prone areas (which tend to have more trees) was, I think, pretty well established. Olmsteads plan for Riverside, IL had the floodplain used as a huge green belt.

It is funny to note that this is also a cry against sprawl....any developement the writer has in mind is now inner suburb!  But that does describe the patterns that describe sprawl - every new suburban development wants to be several miles past the existing.  It takes a long time for the infill to be complete.

I wonder how $4 gas will affect that suburban dream?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks. Yes, re-reading it made me realize that I've never given the "USA Today" treatment enough credit...

"I basically read this as a justification for the housing developments to follow."

I was wondering about that, but thought that whether the article was describing what was going on at the time or what could be expected to happen more often in the coming years, I didn't realize that the mid-to-late 20s were a boom-period of golf courses/clubs...but then, it was still a few years before the Great Depression. 

"As to his contention that the golf course would get priority on the best land, I certainly have never seen a lot of that."

From my limited reading, neither have I -- but I found it interesting that the article seemed to be suggesting that the best land FOR GOLF was being used, and that this land was ALSO the most rugged/natural/beautiful....

Peter   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter

Did American golf course in fact get the best land, or was the best land for courses considered the worst land for housing? Maybe simple expediency explained it.

It seems to me that naturalism was more a consequence of the evolving view that a golf course could aspire to more than function, namely to beauty and even art.

In this nature was held up as the ideal, following the ideas of Plato and, from Wethered and Simpson, Ruskin.

Also, Mackenzie's lessons taken from camouflage regarding trickeration tied directly to nature and thence to beauty on the course. (This is very modernist view and a break of sorts with the Plato / Ruskin line I think - but if the result is the same maybe it doesn't matter.)

I can see the simple fact of a golf course being driven by urbanization. On the other hand it seems like evolving concepts of landscape architecture towards naturalism were a function of the urnsbization of society.

Mark

[Steve_ Shaffer]

There was more land surrounding urban areas to choose from then.

Philmont's history from gapgolf.org

"At Philmont neither the location nor the name has ever changed. And as was the case at Springhaven, it was a woman who spurred this club into existence, even to the point of finding the site for it.
In the early years of the new century there was a steady migration of the center-city Jewish population to the suburbs of eastern Montgomery County. This "exodus" inclined to follow the Reading Railroad line, with most people establishing their homes within an easy walk of the train station in such communities as Oak Lane, Elkins Park, and Jenkintown, though the more adventurous even went so far into the hinterland as Rydal and Meadowbrook.
Mrs. Samuel D. Lit, whose husband owned and ran the well-known department store at 8th and Market Streets, was convinced that what the former city dwellers needed was a country club. It would serve as a gathering place for those who had automatically seen a great deal of each other when they were all living in town. Equally important, it would provide desirable recreational opportunities ("Now that we’ve got all this fresh air, what are we going to do with it?").
Since the next step was to find a location for the club, Mrs. Lit started looking around. It was in the late spring of 1906 that she invited Ellis Gimbel, Jack Aspen, and Harry Leopold to meet her just north of Bethayres one day at a little flag station (the train stopped only if you flagged it down) on Reading called Philmont. Nearby was a rolling, tree-studded 92-acre farm where ponies were being raised. It looked to be ideal, and it was for sale.
A $250 deposit on a lease at $2,500 a year secured the property together with an option to buy it for $65,000. A landscape engineer said that a nine-hole couse could be laid out for about $5,000. It was estimated that the farmhouse on the hill could be converted into a clubhouse for $8,000.
An organizational meeting was attended by nearly 200 people, including many who still lived in the city. Ellis Gimbel was elected president. Completing the slate were Jack Aspen (vice president), Ely Selig (treasurer), and Charles Fox (secretary).
The club, which took its name from the train station, was an instantaneous—indeed, rousing—success. Five months later it could point to 592 members, with regular members paying annual dues of $50.
Few of those who joined had ever struck a golf ball. In fact, when the first greens committee was appointed, only two members could be found who had played golf. Tennis was the most popular sport then at Philmont. Baseball also had plenty of enthusiasts. Even polo had its devotees. And the club’s younger women organized a basketball team.
Philmont officially opened on May 18,1907. In those days many of the members who continued to reside in the city took the 9:17 train on Saturday morning from Reading Terminal, and went back home on the 12:19 a.m., following the Saturday evening festivities. For them, a day at the country club was a long day. A horse-drawn bus transported them to and from the Philmont station."

[Jeff_Brauer]

"A landscape engineer said that a nine-hole couse could be laid out for about $5,000. It was estimated that the farmhouse on the hill could be converted into a clubhouse for $8,000."........

A comment and a question -

Comment: Even back then, they tended to spend more on the clubhouse than on the golf course, even when starting with an existing shell!


Question:  Could this be Barkers other Philly consulting job?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jeff,

From all the Philmont threads posted here over the years, I think it is clear that John Reid  "layed out" the original Philmont course(now the South course) that opened in 1907 with later help from Hugh Wilson and club member Henry Strouse in 1914.

Don't start another Barker thingy.

[Peter Pallotta]

Steve, Mark - thanks.

Mark, always good and interesting posts. This line in particular struck me:

"It seems to me that naturalism was more a consequence of the evolving view that a golf course could aspire to more than function, namely to beauty and even art."

Yes, that might be it. And so I wonder - will naturalism keep evolving until golf courses aspire to more than beauty and art, namely to nature?

If naturalism isn't tied to a reaction against increased and increasingly complex urbanization, is it thus free to keep evolving?

Peter

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()