[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

In thinking about it, perhaps an even more imprtant question is whether the entire Land Plan measures 338 acres?!?  Knowing the answer to that question would certainly help determine whether we can continue to use it as a reference.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

Mike,

Here's an overlay of the flat scan plan of property on the aerial.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions on whether it is uniformly off or not.  But, to me, all the boundaries, except for the road are pretty much on with the July 26, 1911 boundaries. The approximate road, of course, is off from the as-built GHR, and creates an area for the "Golf Course" of approximately 122 acres.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Is that dotted line along the road an attempt to reduce it to 117?

***EDIT***Nevermind...dumb question.

I just never saw the Land Plan blown up that size before so that you can see all the separate little dots.

THanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

As to the other road being "off" I believe that also shows that it is clearly just a concept.  There are no lot lines, etc., all of which were added later as the land use dominos fell - i.e., they determined what land to use for the golf course.

I still maintain that both roads could be illustrative ONLY, as Mike C originally contended and that they may NOT have been exact acreages. I know my modern renderings that get shown long after plans change don't consider that and have perfectly surveyed acreages.  These plans are not intended for that kind of use.

Short version - I wouldn't get hung up on exact acreages of this drawing.  I believe they set a TARGET of 117 (plus the extra 3 RR acres) based on the idea (CBM generated, perhaps) of 120 acres in summer 1910.  As they routed the course in early 1911, it simply turned out that they needed 3 more acres and they got it under a friendly arrangement with HDC to move GHR as needed.

In other words, there never was an exact 3 Acres swapped.  It just turned out that the routing took 3 more acres than they hoped for and they agreed to buy it at full price to the developer (even though you now say they never paid that)

If we wonder about Francis words in 1950 and parse them, my question is, where did the phrase "Francis Land Swap" that has us confused come from.  Isn't it David Moriarity, circal 2007 or so, or did Francis or MCC actually use those words?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

The phrase "Francis Land Swap" is certainly nothing ever said by Francis or anyone prior to 2000.

I agree with you...the only point I'd add is that at some point they had to be working with at least a hypothetical boundary, probably just staked out, because clearly Francis felt that SOMETHING was restricting their placement of the last five holes.   Would you agree?

[Bryan Izatt]

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;   Now, that's daring and speculative    - it's an accident of the property configuration rather than where Connel and Lloyd chose to put a road on the property.  They were bright guys, why not put the road along the western boundary of the Johnson farm and give the course a 150 yard wide rectangle to work with up there?  Or run it along the HC boundary to not create that accident of an unusable triangle up there?   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!    

OK, so you'll go with the option that the road was just drawn 20 yards to far west on the plan, and should have been 20 yards further east - the blue road on my map.

What I'm really trying to pin you down on is where was the Francis swap.  Where was Area F they picked up and where was Area X they gave up.  I thought that you had previously stated that you thought they picked up a crescent up around 14 green, 15 fairway and green and 16 tee, and gave up a crescent lower down.  I was just trying to confirm that that is still your working theory onthe Francis swap.  If it is, it is predicated on P&H mis-drawing the land plan map and Francis mis-stating the 130 x 190 yard dimensions of the swap.  So, where do you stand? 


Thanks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Is that dotted line along the road an attempt to reduce it to 117?

***EDIT***Nevermind...dumb question.

I just never saw the Land Plan blown up that size before so that you can see all the separate little dots.

THanks

No, the plan has parallel lines to describe the two sides of the road.  It just got a little dotty when I extracted the golf course area.  My previous post maps the blue road that would reduce it to 117 acres.

[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;   Now, that's daring and speculative    - it's an accident of the property configuration rather than where Connel and Lloyd chose to put a road on the property.  They were bright guys, why not put the road along the western boundary of the Johnson farm and give the course a 150 yard wide rectangle to work with up there?  Or run it along the HC boundary to not create that accident of an unusable triangle up there?   Bryan...simply because they were trying to keep it to rougly 120 acres for golf course...they had only secured 117 at the time and the agreement was that the rest was going for profitable real estate.   In a way you've proved my point.   There were NOT trying to fit the land boundary to an already routed and designed golf course...they were simply drawing a proposed boundary (flexible) along the Johnson Farm to limit the coming design to that 117 or so acres they thought they roughly needed.  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!    

OK, so you'll go with the option that the road was just drawn 20 yards to far west on the plan, and should have been 20 yards further east - the blue road on my map.

What I'm really trying to pin you down on is where was the Francis swap.  Where was Area F they picked up and where was Area X they gave up.  I thought that you had previously stated that you thought they picked up a crescent up around 14 green, 15 fairway and green and 16 tee, and gave up a crescent lower down.  I was just trying to confirm that that is still your working theory onthe Francis swap.  If it is, it is predicated on P&H mis-drawing the land plan map and Francis mis-stating the 130 x 190 yard dimensions of the swap.  So, where do you stand?  Bryan, I'd love to speculate further, but I'd need to know the answer to the questions I asked about whether just this section of the Land Plan is "off", or whether it was uniform.   In other words, does the entire Land Plan represent and measure 338 acres?


Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I think it was you who said the simplest explanation is probably the best.  Since no othe documents have surfaced - the alleged topo maps are a creation of the TePaul mind circa 2009 - I think its quite possible that the road drawn on the November 1910 WAS the working boundary.  And, Francis was simply the first to recognize that widening it at 15 green and giving back land near 1 and 14 tees made a lot of sense and kept the acreage similar.

While the contribution was important to him personally enough to record in the 1950 history, he doesn't really say that it was the KEY to the whole design, just that it was his contribution.  It simply was one idea that contributed to the final routing, not some huge aha moment, dramatic telling of it notwithstanding.  (Wilson's trip got dramatized by the history author, too, and was mostly true, with dates changed, so why not put a little drama in Francis story?)

We also have to recall that we have made it perhaps a bigger idea than it really was because it became the focal point of DM's argument that CBM had to have routed the golf course.  Even if they did lock on to the November 1910 boundary and/or keeping it to 117 acres for cost reasons, it really was just probably his idea to configur the holes in that area as they were, as opposed to Wilson or someone else doing other ones, so he told the story when asked.

To answer the question above, I believe there was no actual defined acreage in the Francis Land Swap - a phrase we need to stop using if we are to understand this.  Francis didn't say there was a swap.  Francis said that the fine homes along golf house road were once in the golf property, but now aren't because he needed more land up in a triangular parcel near 15 green and 16 tee.

We should really say that the land was "finally configured" after the best routing was determined.  That is what happened, IMHO.  That is the notion that the record BEST supports, IMHO.  To conclude much else, we have to speculate far too much.

There was an approximate road, known to be necessary to reconfigure.  They started with the Nov 10, 1910 map agreed to on a vote on Nov 15 (I think) AND a target of 117 acres from HDC, which was undefined past that map. 

They went to work using that as a basic concept.  They finished routing the course after visiting CMB in March/April 1911.  After they picked the routing, they drew GHR to fit the holes.  It simply turned out that the parcel required after designing it as they wanted to went up 3 acres in total.  The did a deed reflecting that fact.

The land was configured to the golf course like a glove.  There was never a formal swap. That is a DM phrase.

Do we agree on that or am I smoking some dope, having been off here for a while?

[Bryan Izatt]

As to the other road being "off" I believe that also shows that it is clearly just a concept.  There are no lot lines, etc., all of which were added later as the land use dominos fell - i.e., they determined what land to use for the golf course.

I still maintain that both roads could be illustrative ONLY, as Mike C originally contended and that they may NOT have been exact acreages. I know my modern renderings that get shown long after plans change don't consider that and have perfectly surveyed acreages.  These plans are not intended for that kind of use.

Short version - I wouldn't get hung up on exact acreages of this drawing.  I believe they set a TARGET of 117 (plus the extra 3 RR acres) based on the idea (CBM generated, perhaps) of 120 acres in summer 1910.  As they routed the course in early 1911, it simply turned out that they needed 3 more acres and they got it under a friendly arrangement with HDC to move GHR as needed.

In other words, there never was an exact 3 Acres swapped.  It just turned out that the routing took 3 more acres than they hoped for and they agreed to buy it at full price to the developer (even though you now say they never paid that)

If we wonder about Francis words in 1950 and parse them, my question is, where did the phrase "Francis Land Swap" that has us confused come from.  Isn't it David Moriarity, circal 2007 or so, or did Francis or MCC actually use those words?

Jeff,

I'd agree that the roads on the plan may have been illustrative, although the accompanying letter said the plan showed 117 acres.  What I'm trying to get to is where woould the road have to have been to have created 117 acres that we seem to have more faith is correct.

As to the "Francis Land Swap", I refer you to the Merion Memories thread.  Francis used the word swap in "Perhaps we could swap it for some that we could use." in the context of land west of the course that didn't fit any golf use and the 130 x 190 yards area.

If you have some time, and an inclination, I am curious if you could channel H H Barker and do a one hour quick and dirty routing of CBM's melange of holes that he recommended in 1910, onto the Johnson farm, excluding the 21.1 acre area north of Ardmore and west of the "L", and excluding the Dallas estate.  I'm really curious as to whether it could have been fit into that area of roughly 119 acres.  Would you need the 10.5 acres at the northern end  by Haverford College to make it work?  I'll understand if you decline.

 

[JESII]

Jeff,

I think it must have been an AHA moment.

Also, why would it be easier to accept that these guys would place a road on a map designed to entice membership that eliminates certain areas for golf use as opposed to thinking the road was drawn that way because they knew they needed some part of that area for golf but not an exact amount...call it an "approximate" placement?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

I wouldn't have anything to go on to base that routing on, so I will decline. Also, I have some green details to do today, plus believe it or not, two contract proposals! I shouldn't spend this much time here but am waiting for an ancient printer to print a draft version.

I forgot that Francis used the swap word.  That said, unless we parse it out completely, IMHO it could refer to parts of the triangle for indenting the road.  At one point, DM posted a map of the two roads (proposed and final) , on a BW map and the alignments appeared to be about equal in land they traded.

Maybe the reason the routing came out to be three more acres than their 117 target was specifically that they worked to that Nov 1910 map, not realizing that it was off a few acres because it was an illustration only.  After working out the routing, swapping land, etc., they surveyed it, found it took more acres than they thougyht, and they decided to keep it

Jim,

I guess it could have been an aha moment.  I guess every real idea has an aha component even if you are not of the personality to do cartwheels when it comes to you.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan.

Actually, if that dotted line is actually representative of the "inside" of Golf House Road it really is very valuable in illustrating just how far off that approximate boundary really was from what they needed.

The irony is that we were all told for a lomg time that the holes "fit" on that Land Plan so the existence of the triangle shaped piece had to be proof the swap happened before then.

Thanks to your work, we learned very clearly that the holes did NOT fit, but they don't fit even though the map is off in total by being FIVE ACRES LARGER than the golf course land it is supposed to represent!!

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

..........................


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!    

OK, so you'll go with the option that the road was just drawn 20 yards to far west on the plan, and should have been 20 yards further east - the blue road on my map.

What I'm really trying to pin you down on is where was the Francis swap.  Where was Area F they picked up and where was Area X they gave up.  I thought that you had previously stated that you thought they picked up a crescent up around 14 green, 15 fairway and green and 16 tee, and gave up a crescent lower down.  I was just trying to confirm that that is still your working theory onthe Francis swap.  If it is, it is predicated on P&H mis-drawing the land plan map and Francis mis-stating the 130 x 190 yard dimensions of the swap.  So, where do you stand?  Bryan, I'd love to speculate further, but I'd need to know the answer to the questions I asked about whether just this section of the Land Plan is "off", or whether it was uniform.   In other words, does the entire Land Plan represent and measure 338 acres?


Thanks.

Mike,

As the overlay I posted above shows, the Golf Course section of the plan is not "off", just the location of the "approximate" road part of it. In answer to your last question, the Land Plan does represent and measure 338 acres, as best I can measure it.  It is not off in it's totality.  So, back to the question, in your theory, where does the swap happen?  Where are areas F and X?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

So for this exercise, instead of the HDC land being 221 acres and the course being 117 acres as the Land Plan is supposed to represent, we're working with the knowledge that the real estate portion is actually  216 and course is actually 122 as drawn by P+H, correct?

Afterall, if the overall landplan measures out at 338 acres then this is indeed a zero-sum game, yes?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

For Jeff or anyone to attempt that routing exercise on the 119 acres of the Johnson Farm and 3 acres of RR land, wouldn't they need the dimensions of the property bounds on each area?

For instance, based on eyeballing an out of scale RR map I recall Jeff commenting that the area of the Johnson land where hole 2 is today wasn't wide enuff for 2 holes, when in actuality it is something like 120+ yards wide.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

So for this exercise, instead of the HDC land being 221 acres and the course being 117 acres as the Land Plan is supposed to represent, we're working with the knowledge that the real estate portion is actually  216 and course is actually 122 as drawn by P+H, correct?

Afterall, if the overall landplan measures out at 338 acres then this is indeed a zero-sum game, yes?

Mike,

You can use either 221/117 or 216/122.  Whichever you prefer.  I'm interested in your theory of the swap.  If that theory works better with one or the other of 221/117 or 216/122, that's fine with me.  It would all be part and parcel of your theory.  And, yes it's a zero sum game.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

I'm trying to be as precise as possible here.   

Can I also assume that the entire 5 acre overapproximation of golf course land takes place North of Ardmore Avenue on that Land Plan?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I wouldn't have anything to go on to base that routing on, so I will decline. Also, I have some green details to do today, plus believe it or not, two contract proposals! I shouldn't spend this much time here but am waiting for an ancient printer to print a draft version.

I respect that you declined my request.  It was worth a try.  Good to know you have real paying work to do, rather than just dealing with us obsessives out here in the ether.    Keep dropping in on the insanity.

I forgot that Francis used the swap word.  That said, unless we parse it out completely, IMHO it could refer to parts of the triangle for indenting the road.  At one point, DM posted a map of the two roads (proposed and final) , on a BW map and the alignments appeared to be about equal in land they traded.

Maybe the reason the routing came out to be three more acres than their 117 target was specifically that they worked to that Nov 1910 map, not realizing that it was off a few acres because it was an illustration only.  After working out the routing, swapping land, etc., they surveyed it, found it took more acres than they thougyht, and they decided to keep it

Jim,

I guess it could have been an aha moment.  I guess every real idea has an aha component even if you are not of the personality to do cartwheels when it comes to you.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

For Jeff or anyone to attempt that routing exercise on the 119 acres of the Johnson Farm and 3 acres of RR land, wouldn't they need the dimensions of the property bounds on each area?

For instance, based on eyeballing an out of scale RR map I recall Jeff commenting that the area of the Johnson land where hole 2 is today wasn't wide enuff for 2 holes, when in actuality it is something like 120+ yards wide.

If Jeff would have attempted the routing exercise, I would have expected him to work off the Google aerial with the bounds marked on it.  I had absolute faith that he could have figured out the scale from Google.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I'm trying to be as precise as possible here.   OK

Can I also assume that the entire 5 acre overapproximation of golf course land takes place North of Ardmore Avenue on that Land Plan?  Yes.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...thanks Bryan...I'll see what I can come up with tonight but remember, it's purely speculative and a guess although I'll try to use whatever facts we do know.



I do wish Jeff would have given routing the course on the original acreage a shot...

I was all set and ready to dub him forevermore, "One Hour Brauer"  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

For Jeff or anyone to attempt that routing exercise on the 119 acres of the Johnson Farm and 3 acres of RR land, wouldn't they need the dimensions of the property bounds on each area?

For instance, based on eyeballing an out of scale RR map I recall Jeff commenting that the area of the Johnson land where hole 2 is today wasn't wide enuff for 2 holes, when in actuality it is something like 120+ yards wide.

Mike,

The RR map would have to be out of scale if you say two holes fit there, north of the Dallas Estate.  The whole parcel is 4 holes wide.  The little notch before purchase of the Dallas Estate is about 1/3 (not 1/2) the width of that side of the L.  It was NOT wide enough to put in two good holes.  120 yards is 360 feet - good enough for one hole by today's standards, and even by old day standards, short of being wide enough for two holes.  A minimum for two holes back then would have probably been 400 to 450 feet, whereas today it would be a minimum of 500-600 feet.

With your permission, I will use the Brauer Hour as a catch phrase.

But let me ask you a question:  I thought your whole premise was that the changes simply occurred along Golf House Road, no?  Why are we spending time trying to find exactly what land was swapped?  I don't think there was a formal swap, other than the land along Golf House Road.

[Rich Goodale]

As this thread seems to be degenerating into civility and seemingly meaningless minutiae, how about a question to speice things up again, namely?

Why do we give HH Barker so much credit?  From what I can read, his architectural "career" was short, nasty and brutish.  The two reasonably good courses he suppposedly designed (Columbia and Mayfield) give him zero credit on their websites.  Are they part of some wider conspiracy or is it just that HH was really not very good?

[henrye]

Rich, sounds like you should start a new thread.  I'm more curious as to what happened to David Moriarty.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()