Dan,
So was I.
As for neighbors, there were RR and Haverford college, and besides that HDC controlled most of the land. MCC and HDC were keeping things under their hat so they could scoop up land on the cheap.
David,
Thanks for helping move the conversation along.
I have a number of questions, if I might.
1) Connell and HDC made clear that Merion could have as much land as they needed for their golf course. They seemed to make that very clear when they said, "100 acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course", which is pretty much an open-ended proposition. Why do you think they stuck with 100 acres? If they needed more, wouldn't it have been easier to simply negotiate for more cheap land with HDC (recall they were paying about 1/2 price for land from HDC) rather than go and buy a whole different property with the Dallas Estate? Also in terms of topography, that land is ok, with a couple of nice features, but it's nothing great for the most part, nor does it feature anything nearly as dramatic as what they had available to them north above the quarry on the Johnson Farm.
I don't think that it was realistically as "open ended" as you suggest, otherwise they wouldnt have mentioned the 100 acres.
Also, while HDC owned the 140 acre parcel some call the "Johnson Farm," they had only secured the rest of the land through options, and look to have needed the cash from the sale to Merion (plus some more apparently, thus necessitating LLoyd's bridge) to exercise these options and get to developing. For instance, HDC had only an option on the 56 acre Taylor estate to the west. This land was actually not purchased until the deal with MCC (through Lloyd.) Also, recall that one of HDC's conditions for the sale was that Merion quickly build a golf course. They not only had to exercise their options and develop the land, they also needed to sell the improved land at a higher price because it was adjacent to the golf course. So realistically, they may have been limited to the Johnson farm, as they may not have been able to afford to sell Merion anything else on the cheap and up front.
Also, the more land they sold on the cheap to Merion, the less they had to develop. So HDC had an incentive to keep their acreage down. As it turned out, the "or whatever is needed to build a course" turned out to be four acres less than the 100 offered, and this may have been what they had in mind all along.
2) Macdonald and Whigham seemed to identify the potential of the quarry in June 1910 when they stated that "much could be made" of the natural hazard. Why do you think they didn't recommend that Merion buy easily available land directly due north of the quarry, where the 16th tee is today, as that would have made a very obvious lengthy par four with over 250 available for the drive, and then a lengthy second. AS it is, they only recommended the purchase of land a mere 65 yards beyond the quarry, limiting Merion to using the quarry for a single par three. There is no way to create a horizontal hole of any length running west/east using the quarry because the quarry continues all the way to the eastern border of the property? Who do you think goofed here?
- Most of land north of the quarry was controlled by the College, and I don't think it was for sale. Do you?
- As far as I know, it was HCC that set the northern border for the rest of the land, not Merion or whoever "they" is. HDC is the one who made the offer.
- I presume by "they" you mean M&W or maybe HHB, but you are assuming much more that the record establishes about what they did or didn't do.
- While the swap most likely occurred after Barker did his routing, we don't know whether or not he did it before M&W inspected the property, so it is possible that "they" did recommend the purchase of the land west of HDC.
- If not, then why do you assume that M&W were even aware that going north was an option? I've seen no evidence of this at all. I don't understand where you get this, but it betrays an animosity toward them that I just don't think fits with anything having to do with reality. In fact, I don't understand any of your assumptions about what M&W recommended or did not recommend, but they don't seem to be fact driven.
I don't think anyone screwed up. MCC used the land you think they should have, didn't they?
3) Why would the Committee, or Macdonald, or whover, create 13 holes on the lower land when they had to know they didn't have anywhere near enough room left north of that to create five additional holes? By your own map you tell us that they didn't want to use land west of the course (as Francis tells us it was not part of any golf layout), so after they laid out 13 holes all they had left was the area I have in light purple (and the quarry, unusable for any tee, fairway, or green, is in yellow). It's clear that there is no space there for more than 3 holes, tops, if they were of any quality, and one of them would have to be a par three.
Here we go again.
- First, Mike, the holes did not fit as well as they had hoped, so they needed the extra land.
- Second, Francis wrote that there was land to the west that they didn't need. He didn't write,
no way no how did any of our plans go even a few yards west of the current boundary of the course. So your inflexible boundary along the current property line is not necessarily what they were working with at all.
- Third, your drawing has the first tee in the wrong spot, and doesn't show all of the room available north of the 1st fairway. Even with the dogleg-right version of the first hole, there would have been room to move 14 substantially back either toward the 1st green or toward the clubhouse. Move 14 back and you can move the 15th tee back. Make 16 a cape hole and there you have it.
What I find odd is that the other day when I produced the exact same map and question you basically called me out saying I was horribly misrepresenting your theory. Yet, I don't see any difference between the area remaining for the final five holes on your map versus what I drew yesterday on Bryan's?
You were and are horribly misrepresenting my theory. You combine the north border of the 100 acre parcel with the south border of the finalized course, and insist that I think that the entire course had to fit in there. I never said this and I don’t think it. As I said above, there is no evidence that they were intent on not going an inch further west than they actually did. Yes, they ultimately pinched way in across for the clubhouse. But going up in the corner allowed for this. Had they not gone up in the corner, they wouldn't have been able to pinch in as much.
Look at all the land they had to work with to the west! They could have easily been counting on overlapping the 14th green and 15th tee and still would have plenty of room to the west to give up. Plus, 14 could go back much further than you indicate.