[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll play along for fun. Patrick if they had the thing routed -- like you just said -- why didn't they put the road where it ended up being? And, why did they want golf course all the way up to College Ave. when they knew they weren't going up there? Humor me.

Tony,

You and others seem to think in the context that "A" routing was the ultimate or final routing.

Routings are revised all the time.

To say that no prior routing existed because the ultimate routing was modified is "nuts"

One only has to look at Sand Hills where Dick Youngscap bought about 8,000 acres for his golf course.
But, when C&C were doing the routing on the land Youngscap owned they discovered that they desired some addtional land to route a number of holes on, hence, they advised Youngscap to buy the additional acreage, which he did.  They subsequently rerouted the course to include a few holes.  I believe it was holes # 12 and # 13, but, it could have been more or others.

Are you sufficiently humored ?

Another example is CC of York, where both Flynn and Ross provided seperate routings on the same piece of land.
Just because one architects routing was chosen doesn't mean that the other architect's routing didn't exist.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Did you see the modern pic I posted from close to the same angle.  Yes.

If not for the trees the area of the original 10th green would appear to be to the right of the road as well.  Yes. Of the section of the road that's visible.  If you could see through the trees, it would curve back to the right of where the 10th green was, if I understand the perspective of the photo.

What road do you think this was?  Don't know.  It's looks like a painting, so maybe it was artistic license.  It appeared on a dinner menu at the end of 1911 and no other such road appears on any maps of the time.  So, maybe it's an artistic impression of GHR.  We know from the deed that the road was there by July 1911.

Per my post above, do you think that GHR could have been designed and built between April and July 1911?  If not, how long a lead time do you think was required.  In other words, when did they need to pin down the location of the road to get it designed and built by July 1911?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Mike,  thanks for reiterating your theory.  I was only thinking specifically of your theory of what was swapped for what, but the broader theory is fine.

You asked me to describe again my theory of what I think happened.   I thought I had done that some pages ago when I first summarized the original historical property boundaries and drew out on those pre-purchase maps what I thought happend, and then again later I thought I had done it using the Merion internal documents that showed what was done by Barker, and what was done by Macdonald in mid-1910, as well as the correspondence to membership in November 1910  but I'll try to summarize.

First, I believe that the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm were the areas originally considered by both Barker as well as Macdonald and Whigham as part of the "nearly 120 acres" that would be required to be purchased that Robert Lesley referred to in July, 1910, and which the Site Committee recommended to the Board.   The fact that they measure out to 119 acres per your measurement of the area seems consistent with that.

I also believe that it would have been difficult not to realize that grabbing ahold of the Dallas Estate which ran contiguous to the southern portion of the Johnson Farm was a wise move for either real estate or golf course purposes, and you provided the definitive documents that showed that area coming under HDC control in October 1910, well after the July 1, 1910 solicitation to membership.  If you're referring to soliciting the members to buy bonds for the land purchase, that was November 15, 1910. No?  

I believe that pickup of the Dallas Estate then provided options for the golf course that hadn't been possible prior. It also allowed Lloyd to work with Connell to negotiate a real estate/golf course boundary along the western edge of the northeastern part of the Johnson Farm that could be moved as necessary to create the golf course, but which also allowed them to keep real estate acreage maximized and the golf course kept to about 117 acres, which is what they eventually recommended securing.

Thus, the creation of the "approximate road", which replaced the historical boundary of the Johnson Farm along that edge, probably early November 1910.

No matter what the November 1910 Land Plan measures out to, we know it is inaccurate and we know that Merion intended to secure 117 acres, not the 122 or whatever the oversized and otherwise flawed 1910 Land Plan turned out to be.   I don't think we can just write off the plan of property as oversized and flawed.  That's too easy.   While I think the shape of the "approximate road" is probably close to what was intended and even close to what was on the plan they worked with, we still know it's off, so it's subject to continued speculation and doesn't serve our purposes as well as we had hoped.  

We also know that it was supposed to be 117 acres from all of the documents and news accounts at the time the property was recommended to membership in November, and we know it from Hugh Wilson's first letter to Piper/Oakley later in February 1911 when he also mentions that they have 117 acres....not 120.   That is a very specific number and I'm certain it was consistent with whatever topo maps they had created which HAD to have included the land boundaries.  Ah, but which boundary? The "approximate" road?  Or another boundary that describes the actual 117 acre tract?  Have you seen the topo in question to KNOW that it had boundaries on it.

I also believe that the golf course was 117 acres prior to the Francis Swap and 120 acres afterwards.   I think they netted 3 additional acres but it's iimpossible to prove with anything other than the events and correspondences.   We would need to see the boundary of Hugh WIlson's topo map that measuured 117 acres total to see specifically where it happened along Golf House Road.  So, #1, you're agreeing that the RR land doesn't account for the 3 additional acres, #2 nor does that the Lesley Report 3 acre purchase for $7,500; and #3, that the "Francis swap" was not a like-for-like swap, but rather netted 3 more acres.  So, if they added 4.8 acres then they only gave away 1.8 acres, for the sake of argument?

To your measurements...

It really doesn't matter much if that section of the Johnson Farm to the west across Ardmore Ave from the second hole was 23 or 21 acres.   The point is the difference to get to 117 acres can only be found to the west of GHR between Ardmore and College Aves because comparing the metes and bounds on those two deeds shows there is no other place on the property where metes and bounds changed once one takes out that land of the Johnson Farm across from #2.

If that far section was 21 then the acreage immediately to the west of GHR before the swap would be app 23 acres and app. 20 acres after the swap.   It really doesn't matter; the only point is the golf course had to total 117 acres before the swap and 120 after it.    That's how the golf course gained three acres in there to get to 120.1 acres on the July 1911 deed from the 117 MCC originally agreed to purchase.  I'd remind you once again that Hugh Wilson wrote about a 117 acres purchase on 2/1/11 and not a 120 acres purchase as we know happened on 7/19/11.
 
I also believe the additional three acres mentioned during the April 1911 Board Meeting is is not the railroad land since my understanding is that the metes and bounds on the Dec. 1910 deed and the July 1911 deed are the same along the creek.  Oh, I thought we had previously agreed that it was.  If it wasn't, then are you suggesting they bought another 3 acres (and, paid $7,500 for it) beyond the net gain of 3 acres that you mentioned above in the Francis swap?
 
I know it's frustrating to all of us that the 1910 Land Plan is not measurable to an accurate scale because if it were, we could certainly see definitively what's changed.   Tom had claimed in previous posts that he had a deed that showed 117 acres.  I assume that that is erroneous.  But we also KNOW that it's not accurate, clearly, so it's also sort of frustrating that we're  still trying to measure that proposed land plan that seems unreliable for measurement.  Everyone seems to agree to that so I'm not sure exactly what we are still thinking can be uncovered there.  

The point is that whoever was routing and designing the golf course frankly couldn't have been using that Nov 1910 proposed plan to route and design the course----they were using a topo map Hugh Wilson also referred to and sent to Piper & Oakley in February 1911 that most assurely DID have a measurable and accurate delineation on them for Golf House Road!    Otherwise there wouldn't have been anything at all that would have been limiting them in that area, would there?

Remember all it was out there was just open ground. They probably just measured and staked out on the ground the measurable delineation of GHR showing on their topo contour maps (that enclosed a total of 117 acres)   And, in your theory, who was it that decided the delineation that provided 117 acres.  Why was it them, and not Pugh & Hubbard, the professional surveyors who drew the land plan. Why couldn't P&H get it right on the land plan, but somebody else could on a topo?   and could see it was a problem fitting those last five holes in with that delineation on their topo contour maps.   That delineation of GHR on those topo maps is the only thing that could've been limiting them at that point.

The other issue is that if the Francis Swap had happened before Nov. 1910 there would've been no reason at all for the board to consider an exchange for land ALREADY PURCHASED for land ADJOINING AND the purchase of 3 acres additional as it already would've been considered and done before Lloyd even purchased the 161 acres and it obviously would've been reflected on those topo contour maps with their GHR delineation (which in that case would not have been limiting them on those last five holes).
 
It is also important to understand that in Nov. 1910 on the HDC real estate side 221 acres were slated for residential development while in reality only app 218 acres were ever actually developed of the original 338 acres mentioned by HDC and MCC.
 
I think some folks here are still hung up on the language Richard Francis used to describe the northern part of the property and still think that Merion had to to come along and swap for  that whole "Triangle", and then looki at the Land Plan of November 1910 and thinki since some land up there was already identified that everything must have happened before then, even if it doesn't measure out to what Francis said on that plan, or other factors such as the size of the plot and other timings make it a jigsaw puzzle piece that certainly doesn't fit the story or timelines in any way.

What some folks here don't seem to be understanding, and the reason is doesn't fit is because that is NOT what was swapped.   Then what was swapped?  That is what I was originally asking re your theory.  How big was Area F, and where was it, that they gained in the "Francis swap"; what size and where was Area X that they gave back to HDC, in return?  Oh, wait, I see in a subsequent post you add:

"I just think that when Francis describes the dimensions of the area around 15 + 16 he was not precise in his decription of the entire land mass being all swapped for land along Golf House Road now covered in fine homes.

It was probably a bit more complicated and he wanted to simplify it for anecdotal purposes of the article in question.

If you consider that the swap also involved an additional 3 acres coming to Merion, it had to be a bit more complex than we're seeing with the evidence at hand."

I know it's complicated, but could you give it a shot at drawing an AREA F and an Area X that is a swap and nets them 3 more acres?

 

If Francis had done all that before Nov. 1910 then they probably just would've shown the membership in Nov. 1910 a map with the fix already on it and the exact boundaries of what the July 21, 1911 survey and deed showed at that time!  Wouldn't they??
 
Hope this helps!!  

[Tony_Chapman]

I'll play along for fun. Patrick if they had the thing routed -- like you just said -- why didn't they put the road where it ended up being? And, why did they want golf course all the way up to College Ave. when they knew they weren't going up there? Humor me.

Tony,

You and others seem to think in the context that "A" routing was the ultimate or final routing.

Routings are revised all the time.

To say that no prior routing existed because the ultimate routing was modified is "nuts"

One only has to look at Sand Hills where Dick Youngscap bought about 8,000 acres for his golf course.
But, when C&C were doing the routing on the land Youngscap owned they discovered that they desired some addtional land to route a number of holes on, hence, they advised Youngscap to buy the additional acreage, which he did.  They subsequently rerouted the course to include a few holes.  I believe it was holes # 12 and # 13, but, it could have been more or others.

Are you sufficiently humored ?

Another example is CC of York, where both Flynn and Ross provided seperate routings on the same piece of land.
Just because one architects routing was chosen doesn't mean that the other architect's routing didn't exist.

Patrick -- I am humored, thanks. I appreciate your willingness to play along. No more need to sidetrack this thread on page 50.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

I don't have much time available today but promise to try to answer your questions/comments shortly.  

In the interim, I'll be happy to speculate on what the original 117 acres looked like in the interest of trying to solve this mystery.

Again, this is pure speculation, and I have NO idea what it will measure out at, but it does seem consistent with at least what seems to me to be the intent of the 1910 Land Plan showing two parallel, largely symmetrical roads. 

You've proven yourself to be much more artistic and precise than I am, so perhaps this is something you can reasonably do.   What I'm suggesting is for you to plot out the approximate acreage of what Merion would have been if Golf House Road was configured in the exact opposite orientation of the road built through the real estate portion of the property, which I've roughly "red-dotted" to show it's configuration.

I'd really be curious to know what that would look like...you do have fixed starting and ending points where the looping road meets College Avenue on the northern border, so I'm thinking it should be possible.



Here's again the property from 1948, showing a crude attempt at what it might have looked like had the roads indeed been built symmetrically.



Finally, here's the Land Plan from 1910 again, with the planned symmetrical roads outlined in yellow.   In eyeballing it, it appaears that the left road was not built to the original plan either, and seems more flared out at the top.   

In any case, I think you can see what I'm getting at, and I think this theory has the additional advantage of significantly narrowing the area Richard Francis mentioned...the need to widen the area of the triangle.

Why don't we take it for a spin and see if we can shoot holes in it?

Thanks!!

[Tony_Chapman]

Mike or Bryan: Do we have any proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report and spent the additional $7,500 on three acres?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike or Bryan: Do we have any proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report and spent the additional $7,500 on three acres?

Tony,

The proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report is simply that they "Secured" 117 acres in November 1910, Hugh Wilson said they were working with 117 acres in February 1911, the Committee's report read by Lesley to the Board asked for an additional 3 acres at $7500 in April 1911, which was approved, and Merion purchased 120.1 acres in July 1911.

We also know that Bryan's measurement of those land areas works out to just over 120 acres, so we've proven they bought what they bought, so to speak.

However, the cost of the purchase of 120.1 acres was the same as what had been proposed for the 117 acres...$85,000.

The 3 acres of Railroad Land was NOT part of any land purchase seemingly ever considered by Merion.   Perhaps because these men were so closely affiliated with the Rail system they knew they could just rent that land indefinitely, and right after they approved the golf course plan for construction in April 1911, they moved quickly to lease the 3 acres of RR land next to the clubhouse, which they executed in May 1911.

Keep in mind that these 3 leased acres of RR land were also part of the original golf course, which we now know was right about 123 acres in total.

[Tony_Chapman]

Mike or Bryan: Do we have any proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report and spent the additional $7,500 on three acres?

Tony,

The proof that Merion acted on the Lesley Report is simply that they "Secured" 117 acres in November 1910, Hugh Wilson said they were working with 117 acres in February 1911, the Committee's report read by Lesley to the Board asked for an additional 3 acres at $7500 in April 1911, which was approved, and Merion purchased 120.1 acres in July 1911.

We also know that Bryan's measurement of those land areas works out to just over 120 acres, so we've proven they bought what they bought, so to speak.

However, the cost of the purchase of 120.1 acres was the same as what had been proposed for the 117 acres...$85,000.

Mike -- Sorry if I'm missing something, but nothing you said here shows me that Merion SPENT the money approved in the Lesley Report. I still find it odd that we keep going over this move from 117 to 120 when we had two entities working together for the benefit of a housing project and a world-class golf course. Remember, NO ADDITIONAL MONEY CHANGED HANDS.

Mike if you owned 300-some acres and were going to start a development project with a golf course and you had "earmarked" a certain amount of acreage for the golf course, but the routing was cramped in an area and one of the project guys came to you and say we need a little more acreage in this part to build great golf holes AND IT WAS ALONG THE BOUNDARY WHERE MOST OF YOUR LOTS WOULD BE SOLD would you not just let them work out the routing so it provided those great holes and let the routing dictate where the road was placed?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

I think we're on the same page here.

The only point I think is important to note is that in Dec 1910 they were planning on needing 117 acres and after April 1911, or at least by July 1911 they were buying 120 acres, irrespective of costs.

[Tony_Chapman]

Tony,

I think we're on the same page here.

The only point I think is important to note is that in Dec 1910 they were planning on needing 117 acres and after April 1911, or at least by July 1911 they were buying 120 acres, irrespective of costs.

Agreed. I clearly have to wonder how much they had done as far as routing that golf course goes prior to the November 1910 land plan. Clearly, they had done some thinking, because generally their golf course ended up being in the area as the plan says. But, to need SIX more acres than originally planned. That leads me to think they hadn't a clue how to "finish" that golf course yet in November and December 1910.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

While I agree with your general point I might express it differently.

To me, the reason the rest of it "fit" was simply because they had to work within the historical boundaries of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate lands they "secured".

We also know that Mac had recommended they obtain the 3 acres of RR land next to the clubhouse back in July 1910 so I'm quite sure they saw the wisdom of that as well.

Its just that on their only movable boundary along today what is Golf House Road, there certainly seemed to be significant change that took place AFTER Nov 1910, which tells us that is the timeframe when the routing was being worked out and finalized, which the MCC minutes of April 19, 1911 confirm.

[Lou_Duran]

This is one impressive display of computer and research skills.  Unfortunately, it has done little to persuade.  As one with no dog in this fight, the "official" Merion record has not been credibly challenged based on a couple of very brief claims by third parties.  I have not heard that Merion resembles anything that Macdonald or even his successor in the copying business, Raynor, created.  And given the sensitivity of accredation even today, there is absolutely no way that a powerful man with a sizeable ego (enough to having the "national" designation of two tournaments in 1894 removed when he came in second) would have allowed others to gain his due without a major fight in the press and within the golf community.  BTW, surveys, even today with tremendous technological advances, can and do contain errors.  Nothing much further will likely be gleaned from beating this dead horse, but, by all means, bandwidth and time, apparently, ain't that expensive, so continue if you must.

[tlavin]

I check in every month or so to take a peek at the lunatics in the asylum.  My lord, this must end.

Thank you so much.

Ben Crenshaw

[Mike_Cirba]

Sorry, fellows...

Don't mean to waste anyone's important time here.  

Guess I'll go weigh in breathlessly on the scintillating "How the F@ck did that hack Justin Timberlake Shoot 88..." or "Who is going to win at Bethpage", or "What's your Golf IQ"  threads.  

[JESII]

To me, the reason the rest of it "fit" was simply because they had to work within the historical boundaries of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate lands they "secured".

I wonder why they focussed on only those plots for the golf course.

[Mike_Cirba]

I wonder why they focussed on only those plots for the golf course.

Jim,

I think the major reason is simply when they began to look at the land held by Connell in June 1910, the only parcel he owned outright was the Johnson Farm property.

It had a few obvious benefits...1) It was right next to the rail station 2) It had farm buildings that could be turned into a clubhouse 3) it had a quarry and a nice stream running through various parts of it 4) it was large enough as the southern and northeastern sections measured nearly 120 acres for a golf course 5) It had an addiitional 3 acres with a stream right next to the clubhouse that M&W recommended and which I'm sure they knew they could lease from the Railroad) 6) The land was nicely rolling without steep  elevation changes, 7) there was a quarry that made an interesting hazard and The soil was given a preliminary ok by M&W.

It also had some downfalls, not the least of which was that both the northeastern and southern components occupied narrow strips at right angles to each other on both sides of Ardmore Avenue.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the Dallas Estate would have been an obvious "extension" to the southern part of the Johnson Farm, allowing them to fit more holes in the area south of Ardmore Ave.

However, I also think you're right...

If they had REALLY wanted to use whatever the best land was for the golf course out of the 338 acres owned by HDC, or if they had actually routed the golf course on the best of those 338 acres and then left whatever was left for real estate, there is no way they would have stayed within those historical property boundaries.

I was looking at one of the old farm maps last night and there is a really cool section that was never used for golf where the stream comes together in multiple branches right in the middle of the HDC holdings that I don't believe was even ever considered.

Instead, they bought the historic properties, utilized almost all of their historic boundaries, except for where they created the moveable boundary where the golf course and real estate components met on the northwestern edge along today's Golf House Road.  

***EDIT***

Jim...here you go...check out the convergence of three sections of creek near the barn in the middle of the HDC holdings just above Ardmore Avenue.

I'm pretty sure that if they really had the entire 338 acres at their disposal and simply picked the best 117 for golf  this would have been an attractive section.

Please also check out the road that ran from Haverford Ave into the Haverford College rectangle and then down south through the Merion property as per your question last night.

[JESII]

Thanks Mike...yeah, I meant to thank you for finding that RR map with the road through the grounds...interesting thought about the options they had for ground back then...surely today the golf course developer would have gone through the entire 340 acres with holes lined on both sides by homes...

They didn't use the northern border of any part of the Johnson Farm though, you can see there a few yards of property (clearly useless for golf) running along above Ardmore Ave.

[Niall C]

Mike

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely this was a real estate development and the golf course was merely the "loss leader" on the development (mind you, I wonder how much HDC lost by selling AT $725 per acre to Merion at HDC !) and that the golf club wouldn't have had the choice of the 340 acres ? Would HDC not have done there masterplanning and then presented to the golf club the land for the golf course, with the rest being earmarked for housing ?

Niall

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely this was a real estate development and the golf course was merely the "loss leader" on the development (mind you, I wonder how much HDC lost by selling AT $725 per acre to Merion at HDC !) and that the golf club wouldn't have had the choice of the 340 acres ? Would HDC not have done there masterplanning and then presented to the golf club the land for the golf course, with the rest being earmarked for housing ?

Niall

Niall,

I think it's a matter of degrees and a matter of converging, mutually beneficial interests.

There is no question that 1) the land company was willing to sell the acreage for the golf course at half the price they purchased it for, and that 2) they did so with the belief that the result would significantly increase the value of the remaining real estate component.

It all worked out as everyone hoped...probably even better.

It's also probably a good thing that nobody I know had yet invented the condo-canyon hole, bordered on all sides by real estate, or some smart business guys like Lloyd might have seen an opportunity and today Merion might be known as "The Links at Merion at Hawk's Ridge Estate".   

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Since you asked for my best GUESS of what the 117 acres might have looked like that they were originally working with, and please I know my scale and drawing abilities are poor, but I'd be very curious what this rougly measures out at, if you're able to make easy determinations.

Any possible attempts to more accurately match the symmetrical dimensons of the western road on the eastern side would be greatly appreciated because I'm sure mine aren't near exact.

Thanks!

[John_Cullum]

Mike

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely this was a real estate development and the golf course was merely the "loss leader" on the development (mind you, I wonder how much HDC lost by selling AT $725 per acre to Merion at HDC !) and that the golf club wouldn't have had the choice of the 340 acres ? Would HDC not have done there masterplanning and then presented to the golf club the land for the golf course, with the rest being earmarked for housing ?

Niall

I would expect they deemed the eastern boundary of the property unsuitable for high end housing because of the railroad tracks

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Since you asked for my best GUESS of what the 117 acres might have looked like that they were originally working with, and please I know my scale and drawing abilities are poor, but I'd be very curious what this rougly measures out at, if you're able to make easy determinations.

Any possible attempts to more accurately match the symmetrical dimensons of the western road on the eastern side would be greatly appreciated because I'm sure mine aren't near exact.

Thanks!

Mike,

Just eyeballing it, it comes out to more than 120 acres.  The area to the south end is bigger than the area to the north end.  It escapes me why you're trying to mirror the as-built Turnbridge rather than the plan of property western road.  As you acknowledge they are different.  In any event, there are endless ways to draw GHR to achieve 117 acres.  If I mirror the as-built Turnbridge, it comes out close to 117 acres.  Why do you think that this was what Connel and Lloyd had in mind?  Why wouldn't P&H have captured this configuration rather than the one they did?  Here's the mirror as you requested:

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

As per the previous post, there are many ways to realign the "approximate" road location to achieve 117 acres.  The conundrum is why didn't P&H use one of them?  I just don't buy that they were sloppy or ill-advised.

The easiest way to make the acreage work out to 117, would be to move the "approximate" road 60 feet or so to the east.  In the map below the red road is the "approximate" road as P&H drew it, while the blue road parallels it 60 feet to the east.  Of course, that  makes the northern triangle even more useless to the golf course.  Alternately you could draw the road as per the yellow line.  That also produces 117 acres.  Or, you could draw it as the mirror of Turnbridge and get around 117 acres.  Or, you could pick another configuration and force a result of 117 acres.  But, which one, if any, did Evans and The Committee have in mind in November 1910?

Are you going to go back and respond to my previous post, and in particular to the following:

I think some folks here are still hung up on the language Richard Francis used to describe the northern part of the property and still think that Merion had to to come along and swap for  that whole "Triangle", and then looki at the Land Plan of November 1910 and thinki since some land up there was already identified that everything must have happened before then, even if it doesn't measure out to what Francis said on that plan, or other factors such as the size of the plot and other timings make it a jigsaw puzzle piece that certainly doesn't fit the story or timelines in any way.

What some folks here don't seem to be understanding, and the reason is doesn't fit is because that is NOT what was swapped.   Then what was swapped?  That is what I was originally asking re your theory.  How big was Area F, and where was it, that they gained in the "Francis swap"; what size and where was Area X that they gave back to HDC, in return?  Oh, wait, I see in a subsequent post you add:

"I just think that when Francis describes the dimensions of the area around 15 + 16 he was not precise in his decription of the entire land mass being all swapped for land along Golf House Road now covered in fine homes.

It was probably a bit more complicated and he wanted to simplify it for anecdotal purposes of the article in question.

If you consider that the swap also involved an additional 3 acres coming to Merion, it had to be a bit more complex than we're seeing with the evidence at hand."

I know it's complicated, but could you give it a shot at drawing an AREA F and an Area X that is a swap and nets them 3 more acres?

I hope you are not dodging the "where the actual swap was" question. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Thanks for drawing some of that out again.

I'm not sure why would you suggest I'm dodging the question of where the 117 acres were and what got swapped when I just put forward a VERY speculative suggestion regarding creating Golf House Road as a mirror of Turnbridge that frankly wouldn't support my theory very well?

I could have easily just said that you'd need to move the road about 30 feet along the length to the east, because I thought that is the dimension you had suggested earlier would yield a few acres in return from what P&H drew.   If it's 60 feet, that's a possibility, as well.

As to your point about that making the "triangle" even less useful for golf, isn't that the point?   It's only when you buy into the theory that the exact dimensions of the course were determined through some previous invisible, hypothetical routing that you run into that quandary and we already know that ALL of the rest of the course besides that western edge was bounded by historical boundaries...NOT anything purchased specifically for golf.

And, my theory is that once the 21.1 acre Dallas Estate was purchased in October 1910, that gave them a possible 119 acres of Johnson Farm they originally looked at in July 1910, + 21 acres Dallas Estate, + 3 acres of RR land next to the clubhouse M&W recommended for 143 total and we know they wanted to limit golf course acreage to around 120.

THAT is when the hypothetical road boundary got drawn by Connell and Lloyd, and the fact that it got tight up near the top because of the way the Haverford College rectangular property juts in is simply an accident of the configuration of the property;  NOT because someone already planned some holes "up there".   There was no "up there"...it was all just Johnson Farmland that had been further subdivided in an attempt to get down to the desired acreage.

I'm more than happy to try and answer your questions further, but I would ask you this first;

Is the 1910 Land Plan only incorrect and overstated in one measured area or is it uniformly and inconsistently inaccurate throughout?

In other words, does everything say, south of Ardmore Avenue measure out fine and everything above inaccurate, or is the entire map off by some percentage?

I would think that would be important for us to know, because otherwise, with the evidence I've seen to date I'd say that the answer is simply that the "Approximate Road" was misapproximated by some 20 yards as you suggest between what was proposed and what they eventually needed to fit the golf holes, and I know you're hoping I make a more daring, speculative answer than that!    

Thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Interestingly, the "approximate" road built through the Real Estate Development (Turnbridge Rd) also seems off a bit on this 1910 Land Plan versus what was built as well, doesn't it?



I sense we might be chasing ghosts here since the 117 acre Land Plan measures 122 acres, but I'd still be curious to know if it's uniformly incorrect or just in certain areas....thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()