[Phil Lipper]

While walking up a fairway at Shinnecock yesterday someone asked "if Shinnecock was here before National, why didnt they build Shinnecock on the water". No one seemed to have a good answer why the next club was able to buy the "better" piece of land. Any ideas?

[Andrew Buck]

I give this post a hearty congratulations for actually using real discussion as an opportunity to say you played Shinnecock 

and yes, that is jealousy.

[SteveOgulukian]

You could also then ask the same question with respect to Sebonack

[Mac Plumart]

I actually had this discussion with a good friend of mine,I hope he chimes in.

He thought, and I agreed that National had the best plot of land for golf of the four courses in the area.

[Russ Arbuthnot]

I read somewhere that the answer is because the land before found by Macdonald wasn't considered developable. But with more modern techniques, and with "some 10,000 loads of topsoil"*, he was able to create the course.

The Architects of Golf, 1981, pg. 55.

[Scott Wintersteen]

I read somewhere that the answer is because the land before found by Macdonald wasn't considered developable. But with more modern techniques, and with "some 10,000 loads of topsoil"*, he was able to create the course.

The Architects of Golf, 1981, pg. 55.

This is the answer that was mentioned in the Evangelist of Golf.

[DMoriarty]

The short of it (according to one of the founders, Samuel Parrish*) is that in 1891 William Davis (then the professional at Royal Montreal) chose the site because it was relatively free of brush and the sandy ground could be made capable of supporting golf turf without too much expense. Davis had previously viewed land closer to the Art Colony (which I believe was south of the present course) but the land there was covered with brush.

As for the NGLA land, much of it was also reportedly covered with brush.  Plus, this was before the area was much developed, and the (eventual) NGLA land may have seemed too far remote from the Southampton summer settlement.

Here is a post I did a few a few years ago on the origins of Shinnecock Hills. Unfortunately there were many attempts at derailing the thread, but IMO there is some interesting information in the initial posts, then again on the last page (post 220) for those interested in the Davis v. Dunn aspect.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46842.0.html


*Throughout his brief history of the course, Parrish mistakenly refers to William Davis as Willie Dunn, but Dunn did not become the pro at Shinnecock until 1893.  His mistake has lead to a lot of confusion about the early course.

[Mark Bourgeois]

While walking up a fairway at Shinnecock yesterday someone asked "if Shinnecock was here before National, why didnt they build Shinnecock on the water". No one seemed to have a good answer why the next club was able to buy the "better" piece of land. Any ideas?

You are right to put "better" in scare quotes as back when Shinny was built no one thought the NGLA site better land.

I consulted with the Charles Blair Macdonald Timeline Project^TM's Olmsted, NGLA and Long Island research offices and here's the answer to your question: mosquitoes. That is an entirely serious answer.

[Tom_Doak]

here's the answer to your question: mosquitoes. That is an entirely serious answer.

Some of National [specifically the 7th approach, the land right of the 8th, and the 14th fairway] is on VERY low-lying land, just a few feet above sea level.  It may have been wetlands originally, and filled in during construction of the course.  No one in America would have spent the money for that in 1891 ... and only C.B. Macdonald would have spent it in 1908.

Was not the proximity of the train line to Shinnecock also a factor?

[Mark Bourgeois]

EDIT: yes on mosquitos. The architect Downing Vaux described the location of the Shinnecock Inn as "mosquito country." Macdonald wrote that when they started clearing the property it seemed they found every insect "that came out of the Ark" on the property. And he wrote the Shinnecock Bay & Peconic Realty Co. considered the property so worthless the company never bothered to survey it.

And yes, proximity to rail but he cited especially the LIRR's project to double its track. Two other "locale" factors were the availability of rooms in the planned Shinnecock Inn proximate to the then-envisioned first tee and the coming completion of the Midtown Tunnel, the Blackwells Island Bridge and a highway. (Two-and-a-half hours seemed to be the magic (max) transit time Macdonald was looking for to sell his prospective members.)

Recall also Macdonald tried to buy land near the Shinnecock Canal but was rejected. He said this general area was the only location within 80 miles of NYC where it was possible to build an "ideal" course.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Oh, and yes Macdonald apparently did a fair amount of draining and filling.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The proximity of the railroad was a consideration.

In addition Macdonald describes the site at NGLA as a hostile site, far from ideal.

[John Kirk]

I was fortunate to play Shinnecock and National once each, 8-10 years ago.

I preferred Shinnecock Hills to National, though I'm in the minority here.  I'm a huge fan of playing golf in a big field, where you can see the other players around the course, one of the reasons I enjoy Old Macdonald.  I don't think the declaration that National has the better land is as clear cut as being presented here.  Shinnecock is a near perfect golfing experience.

[Mark Hissey]

here's the answer to your question: mosquitoes. That is an entirely serious answer.

Some of National [specifically the 7th approach, the land right of the 8th, and the 14th fairway] is on VERY low-lying land, just a few feet above sea level.  It may have been wetlands originally, and filled in during construction of the course.  No one in America would have spent the money for that in 1891 ... and only C.B. Macdonald would have spent it in 1908.

Was not the proximity of the train line to Shinnecock also a factor?

There is no doubt in my mind that the wetlands were dredged Tom. The right side of 14 in particular clearly were. Impossible in todays environment of course. That was clearly a tidal area.

That whole vicinity was rife with wetlands, both tidal and freshwater. I think it may have been seen as a liability in those days.

My God, if they only knew...

[DMoriarty]

It is always fun to speculate about the possible reasons in a situation like this, but in this case there is no need because someone who was actually there told us what happened.   There is no mention of SHGC ever having considered the current location of NGLA, which was pretty rough and remote in comparison to the location chosen by Davis.

From Samuel Parrish, writing in 1923 about events in 1891.  NOTE:  PARRISH IS MISTAKENLY REFERRING TO WILLIAM DAVIS AS WILLIE DUNN:

  . . . [W]e asked the late Charles L. Atterbury, who was about to visit Montreal on a business trip, if he would interview the authorities of the Royal Montreal Golf Club (organized in 1873, the oldest golf club in Canada, and therefore in the western hemisphere), and arrange with them to have their professional come to Southampton and look the ground over. As the result of this interview, the Scotch^Canadian professional, Willie Dunn [William Davis] by name, arrived at Southampton with clubs and balls in the early part of July, 1891, consigned to me.
   Immediately upon his arrival we drove out to the Shinnecock Hills, but had proceeded only a few hundred yards beyond the site of the present Art Village, where the brush then was and still is very thick, when Dunn [Davis] turned to me and remarked in a somewhat crestfallen manner that he was sorry that we had been put to so much trouble and expense, but that no golf course could be made on land of that character. We had already turned our faces homeward toward Southampton when I said to Dunn [Davis]: "Well, Dunn [Davis], what do you want?" thinking perhaps that trees or other natural obstacles were needed for the ground, my knowledge of the requirements of a golf course being at that time exceedingly hazy. He then explained that ground capable of being turned into some sort of turf was necessary, whereat my face brightened into a smile, for I knew every section of the 4,000 acres of the Hills, having often ridden over them, riding, bicycling, and lawn tennis having been at that time almost the only active outdoor exercises in our community. I then drove him to a spot in the valley lying between the low hills now occupied by the houses of James C. Parrish and Arthur B. Claflin, the valley then, as now, being composed of a sandy soil comparatively free from brush, and capable of some sort of treatment appropriate for golf at a reasonable outlay of time and money.
  [Davis] then teed up a ball (one of the old-fashioned gutta-percha kind) and handed me a driver. By some fortunate dispensation of Providence, I happened to make a drive (all but too frequently failing since of repetition in my thirty-two years of golf), and the ball went sailing over the embankment of the railroad track at what used to be the old seventh hole, while we still played on the south side of the railroad, this then having been the first golf ball ever struck on the Shinnecock Hills.
. . .
____________________________________


Mark,  you wrote that there was  " a fair amount of draining and filling."  I think I recall some reading something somewhere about some  of draining and filling around the 13th green area and it looks like there was some bulkhead work around the NLE 14th green.   Is this to what you are you referring, or was there more?  If so, what?   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Some of National [specifically the 7th approach, the land right of the 8th, and the 14th fairway] is on VERY low-lying land, just a few feet above sea level.  It may have been wetlands originally, and filled in during construction of the course. No one in America would have spent the money for that in 1891 ... and only C.B. Macdonald would have spent it in 1908.

NGLA was large project, but I am not sure it was entirely out of line with other courses of the era (or earlier.)

Here is the breakdown of the total costs of the project through the winter of 1912 (the had been golfing on the course since 1909, so the numbers include grow-in (which was problematic) and maintenance up to that point:

So backing out land, clubhouse, buildings, and roads, the cost to build the course was $74,500, including irrigation system, grow-in and maintenance up to that point.   Using a CPI calculator that is about $1.8 million in today's dollars.    (A bit over $4.2 million in today's dollars all in, including land and clubhouse.)

Tom,  How does that compare to Sebonack?  

As for whether or not anyone would have spent that kind money in 1908, in 1911-12 Merion reportedly spent $181,000 to create the East Course, all inclusive, including $45,000 for course construction costs.  

As for 1891, we have much less with which to compare, but perhaps we should consider Willie Dunn's 1894-95 Ardsley Park project which reportedly dwarfed the cost of NGLA.  I am not sure I believe it, but the club's website claims it was "the most expensive course ever built" at a "cost of $1 million" in 1895 dollars!   Reports at the time put the cost at $250,000 for just a few months work, and estimated a total cost at $500,000 dollars!   Other of Dunn's early projects, namely Philadelphia Country Club, Baltimore Country Club, and his Jekyll Island project, also required extensive work:

Here is Dunn's description of the Ardsley Park Project:

  The famous Ardsley Casino Links was my next venture.   I started this in November of 1894 and had it completed by May, 1895. There were two hundred men, fifty teams, and eight gangs of blasters at my disposal, and I was told to spare no expense by the backers of this project, who were very wealthy. The Goulds, Astors, and the Vanderbilts were among the first members of this club, which later came to be known as the Millionaires Club. The site selected was on a bluff overlook- ing the Hudson, and was very hilly and densely wooded. There were numerous steep gullies, down which the spring freshets would rush every year, washing much good soil down into the Hudson and making deep scars on the hills. We built walls or dams out of sheets of tin and stones at the bottom of these gulches and filled them in with good earth, sowing a hardy lawn grass on top to hold down the earth. We used the blasters to blow out the tree stumps and rocks, and scrapers and blasters to level off the fairways and greens. To make the tees and greens secure against the danger of landslides and washouts in stormy weather, we made underground walls around them by dovetailing big logs together, like pioneer stockades. When completed, this was a very fine links; I consider Ardsley-on-the-Hudson one of my masterpieces of golf construction work.
     The Baltimore Country Club and the Philadelphia Country Club were the next two courses I laid out. Both of these were built on rough ground and presented practically the same problems as Ardsley-on-the-Hudson.

Hardly the 18-stakes-in-an-afternoon approach we usually associate with these early designers.  

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Thanks for your last post.  I know there's a sucker born every minute, and that there were some very wealthy guys in the robber baron era, but I didn't realize anyone had mobilized them to spend outrageous fortunes on golf development [just the same as certain designers did in the last decade].  Funny for me to give too much credit to Macdonald ... and for you to be the one correcting me on that point!

P.S.  It is foolish to translate 1909 numbers to modern dollars using those crude calculators.  If we only did the same tasks they did in 1909 [clearing, greens shaping, seeding] the calculator would not be far off at all ... I've built several courses for less than $4 million.  But the scope of work for modern courses has changed pretty drastically, and it's hard to compare numbers for huge irrigiation systems, 1500-gpm pump stations, cart paths, or [at Sebonack] installing a closed-loop drainage and irrigation system for the greens.  And don't even get me started on Hamptons prices!

[Mark Bourgeois]

David, I'm afraid I don't have any specifics, just the generality of Macdonald's writing that he did a lot of draining and filling -- perhaps notably during what he said was the worst drought in 30 years.

Good point, Tom, re comparing project costs. The least-flawed comparison coefficient probably would be an opportunity cost measure such as deflated GDP.

[DMoriarty]

Mark,

Would a drought make much of a difference if we are talking about tidal wetlands?  Can you refresh my memory as to where CBM wrote about doing a lot of draining and filling at NGLA?

Mark and Tom,

Whatever calculator you use, I think it fair to say that a project like Sebonack cost a hell of a lot more today than did NGLA.  As Tom said architects are doing a lot more now than they did then.  IMO that in and of itself suggests that the comparison is worth making, if only to highlight how golf course architecture and (the expectations of golfers and high end clubs) have changed, even on similarly situated sites.

Tom mentioned in reference to Ardsley Park that "a sucker is born every minute."   I wonder who in this era will look like suckers 100 years from now.

[Mark Bourgeois]

David, no shouldn't make much difference in truly tidal (ie relatively open water) wetlands but wetlands can lie "trapped" below high tide lines in pools and ponds; additionally, wetlands act as sponges and can retain large amounts of water.

Anyway, here is a passage from 23 August 1908 New York Tribune:




And here is an excerpt of a letter from Macdonald to the founders dated 7 November 1908 — brilliant slam of Southampton: 

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Mark. Great stuff. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()