[DMoriarty]

Tom and David,

Seriously, the amount of personal back and forth between you guys here is really distracting and really annoying.

I think we've made some really good progress here in the past week or so and this crap really needs to end.

While I disagree about the supposed progress, I do agree that the personal back and forth is distracting and annoying.

Let him rant.  I'll still set the record straight as I have time, but try not to otherwise respond.  

[NOTE THAT THIS POST HAS BEEN HEAVILY EDITED.  I APOLOGIZE FOR AIRING MY STRONGLY HELD PERSONAL BELIEFS ABOUT TEPAUL ON THIS WEBSITE.  I ALSO APOLOGIZE TO TEPAUL FOR ANY EMBARRASSMENT THIS MIGHT HAVE CAUSED HIM.]
_______________________________________________

The problem with your Francis interpretation is that you ignore what he says.  Simple as that.  You can pretend it doesn't make sense with this or that speculation and twist of the facts, but he said what he said, and it makes sense.   You just don't want it to make sense, because you are afraid of where that leads.  Just like with the Wilson trip the Alps Hole, the Redan Hole, and a bunch of other things, you guys all made up your minds long ago.  Richard Francis be damned.

As for Jim, he is in a tough spot, and I respect him for putting himself there.  I can't imagine the kind of pressure he is getting off the board.  All because he knows that what Francis said makes sense and he knows that what you guys are saying doesn't change that.   But he wants to be wrong, and he really wants you to be able to convince him.  That you can't even convince someone who really wants to be convinced says something.  

[Phil_the_Author]

An outside-the-box attempt to conceptualize exactly what Francis was refering to as it appears EVERYONE agrees that WHAT he wrote was correct.

Has anyone tried to define it from Francis 1950 perspective? After all, he wrote, "The land NOW COVERED by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long - the PRESENT LOCATION of the 15th tee and the 16th green..."

This brings up immediate questions as to whether the 15th tee and 16th green have ALWAYS been where they are now located or if it is possible that they were located, even a small change would make a difference as we are talking of a very narrow corridor here, in different spots? If they were moved at all, when did this occur and by how much and from where?

I am aware that I am probably barking up a wrong tree, but it seems very obvious to me at least, that Francis wrote that from his 1950 perspective of how the properties had developed up until that time. Therefor I think the answer to this point in the debate lies within understanding that property evolution and how 1950 differs from 1910/11...

If this helps, great, if not, I've been way wrong before, but maybe a new perspective will turn a bulb or two on... 

[TEPaul]

Your #775, Moriarty, is just another of a long litany of examples of why you just can't answer or deal with the legitimate, detailed and important questions put to you that intelligently challenge the credility of that essay of yours.

There is nothing insulting about what me, Cirba, Sullivan, Brauer et al are asking you. Anyone who can read can see that. Are you EVER going to face those challenging questions or is this always going to be just posts like #775 and hundreds like it in the past---pathetic deceptions and diversions?

And as far as me telling you that you should've gone to the subject, its historians and friends who have always known it better than you FIRST, there is most certainly nothing insulting about that------that ONE is pretty much a given and with everyone who's ever done this stuff and if don't know that yet or can't admit to it, you really do have a whole lot to learn about a whole lot of things, including basic human nature!

[TEPaul]

"I am aware that I am probably barking up a wrong tree, but it seems very obvious to me at least, that Francis wrote that from his 1950 perspective of how the properties had developed up until that time. Therefor I think the answer to this point in the debate lies within understanding that property evolution and how 1950 differs from 1910/11...

If this helps, great, if not, I've been way wrong before, but maybe a new perspective will turn a bulb or two on..."



Well, Phil, there are a few things that sort of go to your point there but up until now I've felt they were probably too miniscule and too unimportant to even mention. But there are a few things up around that triangle that I doubt anyone whose contributing now, other than me, is aware of. Certainly Wayne is and his fellow Merion historian. At the very least they do go towards measurments and such but again on a pretty small scale. But they certainly were important enough to Merion over the years to effect them by deed transfers. Frankly, Moriarty has no idea about the various little deed transfers at Merion over the years and how would he? His essay tries to speculate about the meaning of some of them but basically botches them all in accuracy and timing. Again, the work and interpretation of someone with very much less than full research committment. That is just not something one finds sitting behind a computer in California.

I see where you're coming from and it sort of goes to the fact that when you get inovlved with the history of a club you definitely do have to establish a strong working research relationship. Can you, at least, try to make that point strong and clear, Phil, and if not why not?

Personally, I think THAT is what you ought to stress on your posts, instead of trying to be some kind of mediator or moderator of insultors! Stick to architecture and its history, not personal relationships on here that have run afoul.    

[Kris Shreiner]

DMoriarty,
While I am new to this site as a member, I have been a regular viewer,eerrr,lurker for several years. Tom Paul is a friend of mine, though that doesn't mean he is without fault. None of us is perfect. We all make mistakes, do things we shouldn't and hopefully, only on occasion, say something hurtful that we regret.

You have made some rather disturbing, personal attacks in the past. Tom has gotten agitated by some of your comments and been drawn in...making some poor remarks himself.Your last post,however, is a new low even for you, and BY FAR, the most repugnant post I've ever seen on this site slighting an individual! I don't know you personally, but any man of decent integrity would stop well short of where you are going.

Ran, and others, have devoted significant time and resources over the years, creating this awesome forum for intelligent, engaging sharing of information on golf architecture and related topics. We ALL are fortunate to be permitted to participate. Negative, antagonistic or confrontational posters ARE NOT what this site is about...EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT!

State your case, give your facts, render your opinion... AND MOVE ON! The rest of us on this site, and many others who view as non-members, certainly don't appreciate your childish behavior lowering the reputation of Golf Club Atlas. It's obvious you are intelligent enough to understand the need for this...how about a little respect for Ran?!

Tom Paul, in fact, extended an olive branch in an earlier post, respectfully offering to see what might be accomplished sharing information. He's at least making an effort...wher's yours? Nuff said!

Cheers,
Kris

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

You and I might be able to discuss this if we stay away from the personal and petty remarks about each others discussion style.  I looked at your entire post above, but am choosing not to comment to that which I agree with and that with which I don't think would be productive to discuss, like your editorial commentary on what you think of how I think it went down.   I am hoping that this will be more productive.

As I stated before, the general concept they had in mind, as concieved primarily by HDC and its interest in real estate was shown on that map.

This is a premise that I am unable to accept.  What HDC wanted, separate and apart from Merion's input, was to sell Merion 100 acres of land that HDC chose for a golf course.  But the map was  drawn up on Nov. 10, 1910, long after HDC expressed what it wanted.   I think it more reasonable to conclude that, since both sides had been working on the deal since the middle of June, that the document was a cumulation of all these discussions, and it represented what they had agreed to up to that point.  And Merion's demands are all over the document.  Otherwise HDC wouldn't have had to go out and buy the Dallas Estate and throw it in at a relative loss! So I don't agree with you when you imply that the document shows only the general concept as conceived by HDC.  

That is what I don't understand about your argument. You say HDC controlled the general land allocations, and we have a map showing their general intent . . .

1.  I didn't say that HDC controlled the general land allocations.  What I said was HDC controlled the starting point of the negotiation. HDC made the offer. I think that they made the offer of specific land for a specific price, with a little wiggle room left open to negotiation.   Otherwise, the Lesley Report wouldn't have said 100 acres or whatever it takes for a golf course.   The report would have just said whatever it takes for a golf course up to 140 acres!  We assume that "whatever it takes" meant more than 100 acres, but from HDC's perspective it may well have meant less.  Either way, I think it fair to say that HDC wanted to sell Merion around 100 SPECIFIC ACRES of land.    I have yet to understand the argument that this was NOT the case.

2.  As I explained above, I don't think that the map showed HDC's general intent.  It was produced after an agreement had been made.  

I doubt that Nov 1910 map is wrong or that HDC didn't know what they wanted, even if later developments in real estate theory may have yielded more profitable ways to mix golf and real estate.

I am confused.  HDC knew EXACTLY what they wanted.   They just didn't get exactly what they wanted.    It has nothing to do with development theory or what I would have done.  It is just that HDC and Merion did not want the exact same things.

BTW, your post 751 forgot to include that the HDC guys did have an interset in the financial success of MCC, being as they were all going to be members.

So far as I know, this just was not the case, on a number of levels.  First, MCC was a private equity club, so their "financial success" wasn't really the issue.  Second, so far as I know the main guys at HDC were not members of MCC, and were not becoming members of MCC.  Now some of the Merion guys were buying an interest in HDC, so they had an interest in HDC's success.   Is that what you meant?  Because I don't see how that logic would follow?  

Again, when you state "but I don't think it represents where they started" it is once again your opinion, based on your logic, but goes against the maps they had prepared to illustrate what they wanted, so again, its a non starter for the rest of us.

Not really just opinion, but one based on some facts.  
- Lesley tells us what HDC offered.  
- We know what land HDC owned at this time.  
- We know that Merion had been negotiating the deal for months.  
- We know that Merion announced to the members that they had a deal.  
- We know that the Dallas estate had been added (reportedly at a relative loss to HDC.)  
- We know that Francis indicated that the rectangle wasn't in play.

Those are some of the facts which support my "opinion"  that the 1910 map did NOT reflect where HDC started.  But I'd be happy to reconsider if the facts indicate I should.    Perhaps you could list the facts which support your opinion that the 1910 map was the starting point, and only represented what HDC wanted to do?

I understand your reading of Francis words.  But, there can be many interpretations, as evidenced by hundreds of pages of arguments here.  

I respectfully disagree.  Francis' words themselves are not really open to many different and divers interpretations.   The description of the land involved on both sides was not ambiguous.   The reasons for the swap are not ambiguous.   There are some ambiguities, but those aren't really being debated.

I agree that one can argue that Francis misremembered.  That he didn't know what he was talking about.  That he had forgotten.   That he was confused.   That he was joking.   That he was a liar.  But there isn't much ambiguous about Francis' words themselves.  They just are not really open to many different interpretations.

At the risk of being repetitive, I say we look at the maps.  For the triangle to NOT have been in play, we have to assume that the surveyors and map drawers made a humongous error or that it was so conceptual or rushed they did not care to get it right.  And, we have to believe that parsing Francis' words from 40 years later is a more accurate source of info.

First, you keep saying maps as if there were more than  one.  I've asked you this before, but what other maps are there?  

Second.  I don't think the surveyors made a mistake at all.  I think the map was illustrative, to give the Members an idea of what land they were buying, and it served it purpose well.    Not all the details had been worked out, so I wouldn't expect it to be perfect.   But I would expect that it would generally reflect the state of agreement at this point.

Myself, I go with the maps.  They show the triangle as part of the golf course, and later maps show it reshaped.  It is quite symbolically, deeds over words, that prove intent, isn't it?

Seems a very valid approach, but I don't think it has quite worked that way.   Because it seems that you have all sorts of assumptions, beliefs, and opinions, that inform your belief as to what that first map actually represents.    And frankly I don't think the facts support those assumptions, beliefs, and opinions.  

But then that is because I have my own fact and beliefs and assumptions that shape my understanding of that first map.  And I have set out some of the FACTS supporting those facts above.

So again, what are the FACTS that support your strongly held assumptions, beliefs, and opinions as to what that first map meant.  

And again what are these later maps to which you refer?  

Thanks.  

[TEPaul]

"The problem with your Francis interpretation is that you ignore what he says.  Simple as that."



The problem with your Francis interpretation is you're ignoring what he might mean in the only part you've concentrated on and in the other parts of his article and how they might put the only part you are looking at, and only seem willing to look at, in context!

Do you deny you've completely failed to consider what else he said in that article that puts what you are only looking at in context?

Do you deny that you have largely ignored and failed to answer our questions about those other parts of his article and how they might put that 130x190 yard triangle and what it was that he fixed in context with the rest of his article, and particularly the timing of it? If you don't, then please tell us again how you've answered our questions.

Whether you do or don't deny it are you EVER going to be willing to answer our questions?

If you try to ignore or deflect what those questions are, I'm sure that all of us will be MORE than willing to ask them again, and very slowly and clearly this time, until you  FINALLY answer them honestly!

Are you EVER going to do that? If so, I'll start tomorrow with one of them at a time!

Would you at least agree to that or is this charade of yours never going to end?

[DMoriarty]

Kris,

Welcome to the website, and thanks for you having been a friend of cga.com.  

I appreciate your desire to defend your friend, and must say on some level I don't blame you.  I certainly won't take your mischaracterization of my past dealings between TEPaul personally.  Friends tend overlook their friends obvious foibles and blame others.   But if you really know TEPaul then deep down you know what is going on here.  

While everything in my post above is true, I shouldn't have lost my temper and said it here.   I'll edit my post.  

I hope you don't mind if a respond to your comments further in a private message.  

Enjoy yourself here.

David.  

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

I think I understand what you are saying and I agree with you.  
-- Francis was describing the land in terms of what it eventually became.  The final product.  After every little detail was worked out.    
-- In contrast, the much of the rest of his description focuses on how he initially he got the idea for the trade.
-- It would be a mistake to assume that in the middle of the night Francis got the idea to trade exactly 190x130 yards of land for exactly what was eventually traded for on the other side of the road.   Because it all had yet to be worked out in detail.    
-- So the "final product" might not perfectly match "the brainstorm" in every aspect.   Brainstorms are usually more general and they usually have to be fleshed out with specific detail later.  

I hope that is what you are saying because I agree that an initial idea and the final product will rarely match in every detail.    

In this regard, I think that the Nov. 1910 map more closely represents "the brainstorm" stage of the process than it does the "final product stage."   We know that they had much more to do, so we shouldn't expect this map to represent anything close to the final product.  

Does that make sense, or did I misunderstand?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I don't know how you can continually state that HDC wanted to sell MCC 100 specific acres, when they said they'd be happy to provide "100 acres or whatever will be needed for the golf course in July 1910.

Within the same set of documents the Site Committee reports they'll likely need 120 acres for the golf course.   The Johnson Farm, the only land they owned outright at that time, was 140 acres, but also included 21 acres clearly unsuitable for golf.

Big difference in how one views that Land Plan, and big difference that it was likely an HDC document, not a MCC one..

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning. I apologize if my remarks were aimed more at your discussion style than any interpretations of theory or fact, and will try to continue in that vein......unfortunately, I am not sure I can meet the standard because the two seem so closely intertwined (for all of us, not just you)

I do agree that the Nov 1910 plan represented what they had agreed to up to that point.  I am not sure that "where HDC started" has much to do with the discussion if both sides (who were friendly in a win-win deal) had evolved up to that point.  HDC and MCC both had their favored gca's offer opinions and somehow they came to a consensus of the general land configuration, and I have stated the likely reasons of how I believe that came to be (quarry, clubhouse from farmhose, floodplain, railroad buffer, etc.) 

Since the agreed and moved forward, I ask again, what does the 100 vs 120 acre discussion have to do with anything after that point?  I CAN see your opinion that CBM was instrumental in bumping the general acreage, but the record shows he sent a general letter, recommending they use the Quarry, get the three railroad acres to use the creek, etc.  I had always figured that he must have done some kind of routing, but his letter was so general, I think he did not.

As to the membership, someone will have to refresh my memory, but I thought for sure that Lesley, and others who were a part of HDC at some point were later Merion members, and in fact, they put together the whole land deal both to form the new course AND profit from real estate.  It was not as contentious as your post makes it seem.

We can argue and parse Francis words til the cows come home, and we have.  No point beating that horse.

As to the Nov 1910 map, you agree that it represents what had been agreed to up to that point, but think the northern sliver of triangle wasn't included in golf as it shows on the map.  My theory simply says it was included, but they knew the road had to be reshaped at some point when the routing was finished.

All the other arguments are really nil.  The crux of our disagreement is whether that triangle is or is not intended to be included in golf in Nov 1910.  I think it was, for reasons described.  You think it wasn't for reasons you describe. 

At this point, I can leave the discussion, because I know I won't convince you.  But, I did think your post 751 was very insightful as to the real estate needs in this transaction.  Unfortunately, it seemed to me to be the very thing that suggests strongly (proves would be too strong a word!) that the triangle was "in" golf. 

Why?  Because, as you point out, they wanted to front houses on golf, and I see little reason they would configure the general road to have a few lots with golf in the backyard and most with golf in the front yard across the street.   Your support for that little bit of theory was a lot of things YOU would do, things that became popular later, etc. 

So, we both respectfully disagree.  I will point out again that I generally agreed with your theory at first.  It is somewhat compelling and I also believe that CBM probably does deserve more credit than the general public has been led to believe, even if MCC acknowledged him in their records.  That said, there have been no definitive documents to date that show that CBM routed Merion between June and November 1910, and many documents suggesting MCC routed it later (with help from CBM)

Am I wrong in saying that is still the crux of the argument between you and TePaul?  When and who routed the golf course?  And, that central fact is what I am arguing should have more new documents to even bother continuing any debate. 

I hope that clears up my thinking, without adding any insult on your behalf.

[TEPaul]

Mr Jeffrey, Sir:

I am very interested in much of what you said on your #785. Very interested! Would you care to continue to discuss it with me and others?




But first some minor house-cleaning and tidying up is in order. Sometimes things get messy when the occasional drunken, blue-blood-trust-funder who is also a car-yelling babbler to no one in particular, gets let into the Tree-House!

To wit:


“[NOTE THAT THIS POST HAS BEEN HEAVILY EDITED.  I APOLOGIZE FOR AIRING MY STRONGLY HELD PERSONAL BELIEFS ABOUT TEPAUL ON THIS WEBSITE.  I ALSO APOLOGIZE TO TEPAUL FOR ANY EMBARRASSMENT THIS MIGHT HAVE CAUSED HIM.]"




David Moriarty:

I sincerely accept your apology. And thank you; thank you so much for graciously offering it. If I suffered any embarrassment from your momentary lose of temper and unfortunate outburst I don’t recall what emabarrassment that might have been. Perhaps you might try to understand that we blue-blood, trust-fund drunkards, car-yellers and babblers have a pretty efficient built-in mechanism that generally and effectively takes care of such things as niggling, residual, embarrassments; most people refer to that mechanism as “The Blue-Blood Black-Out” (or is it the “Black-Blood Blue Out?” Well, no matter, minor point; I hope you get my drifto.)

Again, I accept your gracious apology and accept it hopefully in the same manner you offered it. However, I would appreciate it if you would please not edit, and keep for posterity on this DG, the following remark which you made to Kris Shreiner regarding how you apparently really feel about your unfortunate lose of temper and outburst and your editing. I say that because it just seems to be so, so,..Aah, Umm, SO YOU!  

To Wit:

“While everything in my post above is true, I shouldn't have lost my temper and said it here.   I'll edit my post.”  



Mike Cirba;

Due to something I noticed yesterday in a Dec, 1910 land transfer document I have a new appreciation for your feeling about how curvilinear roads on that Nov. 1910 Land Plan may’ve been pretty exclusively HDC’s idea and plan, or at least largely their idea and plan, and seemingly not MCC’s. Would you like me to elaborate?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Like Ross Perot, I am all ears, providing we leave the disparagement of David out of the tone and discussion.  If we are discussing any new interpretations of fact, we can leave it at that.  I could be way off here, but I am pretty sure the other 1497 participants here are aware of your basic disagreements with David!

[JESII]

A couple questions, if I can:

Why would Merion agree to buy the triangle if most of it was clearly unusable for golf due to being well narrower than the base at 100 yards?

Why would HDC want the top 150 yards of the triangle as non-usable golf land? Open land that was not theirs...

I believe a "decapitated" northern boundary of the Johnson Farm theory would have generated essentially identical golf course frontage as the resulting Golf House Road, and the "approximate road" when you consider that the top half or the 11/15/1910 triangle is clearly...clearly unusable for golf due to its narrowness.

I will try to do the math, but others more skilled could pre-empt me. I would draw a line straigth across from the Haverford College land out to the as-built GHR and then follow GHR down to Ardmore Ave and get a total yardage...unless someone had a better idea.

The top three questions are important to me though.

[Mike Cirba]

Is this what we're saying things looked like from HDC's perspective before Francis?

I didn't bother bowing out the western edge a bit to create an offset, but are we saying they wanted a straight line subdivision along the western and northern edges?

THAT is the only way Francis makes sense, and I don't see that at all.  

Jim...If HDC drew that map, they were merely suggesting that the golf course land run parallel with the Real Estate Component all the way to the top of the Johnson Farm along a gently curving road.   THAT is all that map was meant to indicate.

They would not cut off the top of their head to spite their face, so to speak.   From HDC's perspective, there was the potential there for another 300+ yards of real estate facing golf course.   The fact that the club stopped the course at 190 yards is irrelevant to the potential there.  
'
Or are you saying they wanted their homeowners to have a great view of a barren, undeveloped field owned by Haverford College and/or Mr. McFadden's barn and cows?    

[TEPaul]

Mr Jeffrey:

I am interested in the following that you said this morning. And I am partcicularly interested in why you said David Moriarty's #751 was very insightful. I think I have some vague idea why you may've said that but it is not clear enough to me yet. Could you please elaborate what you think he was trying to say in #751 because I don't think I really get it and it may be more producive for me to ask you to explain it than for me to ask him to explain it. But it does seem to me that that kind of thing may just deserve some simple measurments, for comparison's sake, of course.



You said:
"As to the Nov 1910 map, you agree that it represents what had been agreed to up to that point, but think the northern sliver of triangle wasn't included in golf as it shows on the map.  My theory simply says it was included, but they knew the road had to be reshaped at some point when the routing was finished.

All the other arguments are really nil.  The crux of our disagreement is whether that triangle is or is not intended to be included in golf in Nov 1910.  I think it was, for reasons described.  You think it wasn't for reasons you describe.  

At this point, I can leave the discussion, because I know I won't convince you.  But, I did think your post 751 was very insightful as to the real estate needs in this transaction.  Unfortunately, it seemed to me to be the very thing that suggests strongly (proves would be too strong a word!) that the triangle was "in" golf.  

Why?  Because, as you point out, they wanted to front houses on golf, and I see little reason they would configure the general road to have a few lots with golf in the backyard and most with golf in the front yard across the street.   Your support for that little bit of theory was a lot of things YOU would do, things that became popular later, etc."


Thank you.  

[JESII]

Mike,

What I'm saying is that the HAverford College corner to the Johnson Farm West border is the same length as they actually used going north for golf...they wouldn't have gotten 300 yards of golf in that triangle...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I guess this is for Jim and TePaul, as Mike C seems to agree:

HDC wanted to FRONT lots on Clubhouse Road with the Golf Course Beyond.  This is both FACT from record and typical in 1910, even if DM points out correctly that LATER, backyards facing golf became more popular.

Maximizing those premium lots to enhance real estate values for HDC meant that CH Road needed golf all the way from College to Ardmore.  That would simply provide more golf fronting lots than if the triangle WAS NOT included.  

It is speculation to say that they wanted 90% of their lots to front the golf course, and a few to back on to the golf course near the Haverford College land.  For that matter speculating that the Haverford College back parcel was as valuble a view as golf course lots may be wrong.  That land could be sold, used for a powerhouse, or whatever, while a golf course view is money in the bank.

Thus, the triangle in question was, IMHO, ALWAYS meant to be part of golf, but the land planner who drew the road on the Nov. 1910 for HDC had no idea of the width required for golf, and penciled in a gentle curve (from a developers perspective) explaining why it is an unsuable parcel for golf.

The land planner who drew the road on the Nov. 1910 for HDC also knew that the agreement allowed the road to move, so long as MCC maintained its 117 acres (or was willing to pay higher prices for more land)  Thus, he labeled the road as APPROXIMATE.  He knew it would change once MCC finalized the routing of the golf course.

David suggests all of this in post No. 751, but then (IMHO) backtracks, suggesting that HDC would have accepted different types of lots.  However, all of that is pure speculation.  He also clouds the issue with arguments about things that happened earlier, even while saying correctly that the Nov. 1910 map was an accurate depiction of what had been agreed to up until that point, as a result of all the collaborative dealings between HDC and MCC.  I agree with that completely and believe the map should be considered accurate for what they knew at that point.

IF the map is accurate (and we have no reason to believe it isn't) then the triangle WAS included in a general way for golf.  And, Francis brainstorm was simply to realign the road to fit in the golf holes.

IMHO, this is the simplest theory to explain what happened.  And, the simplest theory is much more likely to be correct, again, IMHO.  All of our theories have at least a bit of contradictory evidence, so I can see how others draw other conclusions.  My conclusions may be clouded (or more perceptive, depending on how bright you think I am) by having been involved in similar real estate/golf deals.  Of course, my experience may not reflect what happened, just as TePaul's experience may not reflect what happened, and just as David's legal take on things may or may not yeild the correct perspective.

Does that clear up anything for you , TEPaul?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

What I'm saying is that the HAverford College corner to the Johnson Farm West border is the same length as they actually used going north for golf...they wouldn't have gotten 300 yards of golf in that triangle...

Jim,

See my post above.  Why would HDC want most lots to FRONT the golf course and some to Back on to it?  How would the road be aligned?

The Nov 1910 plan accurately shows their intentions.  Saying that they would have had equal frontage, but in a different condition is simply speculation.  Why can't we look at the plan and say that means something, without bringing in some of our own speculation as to other things they may have wanted to do because WE think they are logical?

If they had agreed to that, why would HDC have their engineer draw up a general plan that didn't show that?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

From HDC's perspective, they didn't care of MCC made that triangle 150 yards wide the length of that triangle/rectangle, as long as the total golf course ran the length of the Johnson Farm to maximize real estate frontage, supported a gently curving road, and they stayed within a certain total acreage.

Know what I mean?

I believe the reason Francis had to go to Lloyd is because he realized the course they wanted/needed was 120 acres, not 117 they had secured. 

[TEPaul]

"Does that clear up anything for you , TEPaul?"


Jeff:

A bit, I think. But what I don't think I understand is why DM things that a road up there that is not curvilinear would've yielded lots for HDC that they may've felt created more lot value. Where do you think DM thinks GH road would've gone if HDC got exactly what they may've wanted?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Just saw your question above about curvilinear roads.

Please elaborate.

Thanks!

[DMoriarty]

Hi Jeff,

Jeff,

I don't know how it happened exactly, but somehow I think the most important bit in our discussion got turned on its head.    Let me cut to the crux.

As to the Nov 1910 map, you agree that it represents what had been agreed to up to that point, but think the northern sliver of triangle wasn't included in golf as it shows on the map.  My theory simply says it was included, but they knew the road had to be reshaped at some point when the routing was finished.

If that is you theory, then we agree.   I agree that the green triangle was included in the golf course as it shows on the map.   Not sure how we got confused, but that has been my point all along.   While the exact western border had not been fully determined, by  Nov. 1910 all sides agreed that the golf course would go up into that rectangle area.

All the other arguments are really nil.  The crux of our disagreement is whether that triangle is or is not intended to be included in golf in Nov 1910.  I think it was, for reasons described.  You think it wasn't for reasons you describe.  

We are on the same side here.   We both think that, by mid-Nov. 1910,  the triangle was intended to be included in the golf course.

I'd like to get your views on the other side of the transaction, but want to clarify we agree here first.


[I hesitate to even mention it, so as to not throw us off track, but Lesley (of Lesley Cup fame) was MCC.  So far as I know he never had anything to do with HDC (I don't know if he bought in like Lloyd or not.)   Connell and Nickelson were primaries of HDC.  I don't think they ever became members of Merion.  Lloyd was originally MCC but got involved in both, and others must have as well through buying stock in HDC, but I don't think the MCC people ever had control of HDC.]

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I think it came from the contention that at some point there was a designated 100 acres that HDC wanted MCC to use that did not include any of the triangle land north of Haverford College.   

That is the unsupportable contention, either in terms of overall acreage, the best interests of both parties, supporting physical evidence, and mathematical calculations.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, even TEPaul agrees that prior to the inclusion of the Dallas Estate, they probably were not not including that small rectangle of land above the Dallas Estate.   You do the math, but it seems like we are getting closer to 100 acres to me. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()