[MCirba]

Bryan,

I agree with your assessment 100%.  It was something that evolved through the life of the project and not something that was determined in 1906.

[MCirba]

Where did I say the course was meant to be narrow?

For years you have argued that the course was meant to be much narrower than it turned out, and that CBM planned to put housing along the borders or even between holes.  

You can characterize and parse the small bungalows still planned in 1908 all you wish but members would not be provided land to individually build the Job Johnnys with an overhead spigot that you're describing.

Again with the distortions, Mike?  I don't know what a "Job Johnny" is, but what I'm "describing" comes straight out of the article.  "Small bungalows which can contain [the Founders'] baths, lockers, and necessary conveniences."  That is NOT the description of a home.  Even you must see that.

David,

The had 280 yards of width along two miles.  They had all the room they needed to do whatever they wanted.  You just don't want to give up on the idea that the course was somehow routed by Dec 1906 when in fact, it wasnt.

A Job Johnny is a portable lavoratory.   Why, when you quote what the Founder said do you keep omitting the part about each member being given land on which to build a small bungalow.

Of course they were going to poop and bathe there. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike.  Do you think that photo of W.K. Vanderbilt was taken "that day" too?   How about the photos of Thomas Jefferson Coolidge and Robert Bacon?

I don't give a crap about when the photos were taken. I just think it funny that you pretend that you can tell by looking at them that they were taken that same day by a staff photographer and that the day must have been at the time the article was written.
_______________________________________

As for Travis,  I have no idea what you are on about?  We all know Travis was out there on the property,  and here we have photo of him out there on the property.  Wow.  It confirms what we already know.  

Surely you've twisted this in your mind to mean something much more, but why don't we table that wild goose chase until we've properly disposed of all your current wild goose chases?

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

How many courses of that time period took from 1907 until 1910 to open from design through grow in?

Mike:

That is a completely disingenuous question.  You know that 1910 was not the original planned date of opening.

Sven

[MCirba]

David,

If you look, you'd note that many of those photos are attributed.

As far as what I'm implying, it's simply the second article from the summer of 1908 that indicates Travis was still on the project well into construction and grow-in.

[MCirba]

Sven,

My question was in reference to your statement that you can't recall the term laying out being used at any point a year after construction started.  I've seen it used any time prior to opening and the point of the question was that NGLA took an exceptionally long time from start to finish for that time period.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, I read the article about the aftermath of the fire similarly, and I think you are correct to point out that the discussion of the "small bungalows" is best understood in conjunction with he discussion of "how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down."   Once the Inn burned down, this became an issue once again.

In this regard, I don't think the bit about the "small bungalows" was about providing homesites for the members. Rather, as the article itself states, it was about allowing the Founders to build a place for their baths, lockers, and necessary conveniences.

(I do disagree with you about what the various news reports suggest regarding the apparent evolution of the plan. I don't see evolution as much as I see newspapers who are parroting stale information from a 1904 letter.  But then I prefer to look to CBM's words and actions when trying to understand his intentions.)

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

I have not seen it used to describe work being done a year after the course has been mapped, staked on the ground and construction commenced, except in circumstances were 9 holes were started and an additional 9 added later.  

That was not the case here.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

From the lurker (we really need a new term for this, its sounds creepy):

"Regarding the mention in that article of bungalows with lockers, baths and necessary facilities, that might refer to what was commonly known in those types of clubs as "bath houses" or even "cabanas." Out there in the prominent old clubs on Long Island, also clubs in Palm Beach, the Bahamas etc, etc, they were very common and actually a rather generic design-----they are basically little white huts that are about ten feet wide and maybe twenty feet deep. In the front they generally have an awning off the structure with lounge chairs under it, and behind that a little hut structure that can contain a sitting room, toilets/changing rooms and showers. In clubs like Maidstone, the famous old Beach Club of Southamption, the beach clubs of the Creek Club and Piping Rock, the Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach and Delray etc, etc, these little structures sit side by side and can go on for maybe 50 to 75 yards (although at Maidstone's Beach Clubs their configurations and placements are quite different). They are all generally identical and are lined up perfectly perpendicular to the shore line. Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."

[MCirba]

Bryan, I read the article about the aftermath of the fire similarly, and I think you are correct to point out that the discussion of the "small bungalows" is best understood in conjunction with he discussion of "how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down."   Once the Inn burned down, this became an issue once again.

Wow...spin, spin, spin.  I'm getting dizzy.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  Some but not all of those individual photos are attributed.  The ones that aren't are probably owned by the Herald.  We don't know when they were taken.  They could be file photos, or they could be recent photos, or they could be a mix.  I don't care either way.  I just get a kick out of you pretending you can tell which where taken on at the same time by a staff photographer on a particular day in 1908.

As for Travis,  this isn't new information.  Don't start on your Travis tangent until we have finished your other tangents.  

[MCirba]

To "the Lurker",

Would those little bath houses you're describing be something the club would allocate land to each member to individually build as described by the Founder quoted in the article?   Have you ever heard them referred to as small "bungalows"?   

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, I read the article about the aftermath of the fire similarly, and I think you are correct to point out that the discussion of the "small bungalows" is best understood in conjunction with he discussion of "how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down."   Once the Inn burned down, this became an issue once again.

Wow...spin, spin, spin.  I'm getting dizzy.

It comes as no surprise that rather straightforward logic makes you dizzy, Mike.
  
1. CBM had planned to use the Inn as his clubhouse, at least initially.  
2. The clubhouse has burned down in April of 1908.  
3. This article was in June of 1908, after the clubhouse had burned down.
4. So, as Bryan said, "there were factions within NGLA debating how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down.  The bungalows with the necessary conveniences might have been part of that discussion."

Funny how when Bryan said it, you wrote, "I agree with your assessment 100%" but when I wrote it, you try to dismiss it as spin.

[DMoriarty]

To "the Lurker",

Would those little bath houses you're describing be something the club would allocate land to each member to individually build as described by the Founder quoted in the article?   Have you ever heard them referred to as small "bungalows"?  

You are reading far too much into the word 'allocate' (actually "apportioned" was used.)   This article does NOT say that NGLA was transferring title on seventy individual parcels of land to the founders for California Bungalows from the Sears catalog.   It says the required amount of ground would be apportioned to members for them to build structures ("small bungalows") for their lockers, baths, and necessaries.

Again, consider the developer's statement regarding the limitations on the use of the property.  It was to be used for a golf club.   Small, on-property structures with lockers, baths, and necessaries fits.  Subdividing the property for housing does not.  

[MCirba]

David,

Where would they sleep?

[DMoriarty]

Given that CBM had already told them that his club was not going into the beds business, I guess they'd have to find somewhere else to sleep other than their on-site locker in the bath room.  I'm sure they could manage.

Where did they sleep?  Your bungalows never got built.

*ADDED.  I just noticed a type above.  It should read "their on-site locker and bath room."

[MCirba]

David,

If you're going to mis-characterize what the Founder said I suggest we also rename them from bungaloes to bungholes, because that's all they'd be able to use in there.

[DMoriarty]

I've mischaracterized nothing.  Small bungalows which can contain their lockers, baths and necessary facilities.   

[JESII]

Doesn't the author's use of the word founder in that paragraph indicate that his source is one of the four or five actual founders as opposed to one of the 70 Founders?

Remember, I haven't gone to law school so may well be wrong...

Also outside of my true comfort zone is that term "apportioned" when referencing ground...how is this not describing a grant of some amount of land?

[Sven Nilsen]

Doesn't the author's use of the word founder in that paragraph indicate that his source is one of the four or five actual founders as opposed to one of the 70 Founders?

Remember, I haven't gone to law school so may well be wrong...

Also outside of my true comfort zone is that term "apportioned" when referencing ground...how is this not describing a grant of some amount of land?

Jim:

Antonin Scalia would note that if you meant one of the actual "founders" as opposed to one of the 70 "Founders," you should say so.

Some of justices who shy away from strict constructualism would allow you to interpret that clause as best fits the spirit of the article.

Clarence Thomas would nap.

Sven

[Rich Goodale]

Rich Goodale,

I noticed that you started another thread, but, we're still waiting for you to tell us why you stated that the land where the clubhouse currently sits was "ungolfable" ?

Certainly, you've had enough time to gather information and support for your claim.

You made a definitive statement that the land where the clubhouse currently sits, was "ungolfable".

It's clearly some of the best land on the property, so tell us, in plain Engish or alternatively, in sarcastic tones, why you claim that the land is "ungolfable" ?

I also asked you, how many times have you played NGLA, yet you've failed to respond.

Surely, the answer to such a simple and direct question doesn't require much in the way of contemplative thought.
And it certainly shouldn't tax your memory.

You stuck your sarcastic two cents in, now pay the piper.

Pat

1.  What is the longest golf hole you could build within the confines of a circular 2.5 acre piece of land ?  I'll give you a hint for starters (Area = pi * r squared)

2.  Given that there is a 40 foot high knob in the middle of that circle, what sort of golf hole would you suggest be built on such a site?

3.  How would that golf hole fit into the tentative routing that had already been formulated (Leven, Sahara, Alps, etc.)?

Rich

PS--That's the last you'll hear from me on this thread, as all everybody is doing (including me) is guessing, and it is getting not only boring but downright irritating.

rfg

[JESII]

Jim:

Antonin Scalia would note that if you meant one of the actual "founders" as opposed to one of the 70 "Founders," you should say so.

Some of justices who shy away from strict constructualism would allow you to interpret that clause as best fits the spirit of the article.

Clarence Thomas would nap.

Sven

Perhaps, and that spirit seems to use refer to founders intentions as you would refer to CBM and his three or four key partners on this mission.

[MCirba]

Given that CBM had already told them that his club was not going into the beds business, I guess they'd have to find somewhere else to sleep other than their on-site locker in the bath room.  I'm sure they could manage.

Where did they sleep?  Your bungalows never got built.

David,

Despite CBM's protestations about "beds and hash", it turns out that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down he did both, and rather well, when he built the clubhouse, so he did perceive the need for onsite lodging and met it.

There are numerous bedrooms upstairs in the clubhouse and you may have heard they serve a hell of a lobster roll at lunch.

If you're out there sometime call me and I'll buy you a Southsider.

[DMoriarty]

Doesn't the author's use of the word founder in that paragraph indicate that his source is one of the four or five actual founders as opposed to one of the 70 Founders?

Remember, I haven't gone to law school so may well be wrong...

Also outside of my true comfort zone is that term "apportioned" when referencing ground...how is this not describing a grant of some amount of land?

Jim,  I agree.  You may well be wrong.

A few paragraph's after quote by the "founder," the article provides an extensive list of other prominent "founders" and the list goes well beyond any core four or five.  So the "founder" could have been one your core four or five, but the use of the term doesn't really support that supposition. (By the way, while Cirba and others have often claimed he was, I don't think that Travis ended up being a Founder of NGLA.

As for the word "apportion," so far as I know it has no magical connotation automatically meaning a grant of title to real property.  

[MCirba]

Since "the Lurker" was introduced here by Sven as what I'd term an expert witness, I asked a followup and my question and his response is as follows;

"To "the Lurker",

Would those little bath houses you're describing be something the club would allocate land to each member to individually build as described by the Founder quoted in the article?   Have you ever heard them referred to as small "bungalows"?"

Mike:

Nope, or even Nopty, dopty, dope, nope. Never heard them referred to as bungalows----only as bath houses or cabanas. And no, the members do not own any land with them---that would be the clubs and in some cases they may even get into some form of sitting near the club's riparian rights. Those bathhouses or cabanas are architecturally actually very old fashioned, old world and neat looking (they are the same design in some of the old European beach spas from the teens and 1920s like St Tropez (where ladies go topless) and they kinda look permanent but I believe they basically just sit altogether on the sand in a long row. Matter of fact, I believe they may even be taken up in the winter and all stored somewhere; Frankly, over the years they probably take quite the beating from Mother Nature. I doubt they are the kind of structure that you could get an insurance policy on unless you wanted to do it with Lloyd's of London (whose motto is--"We insure anything under the sun"), and pay more for it than your mansion on Gin Lane and such.


So I asked another follow-up;

To "The Lurker",

Would anyone defined as one of the Founders of NGLA ever describe those little breakdown huts you're describing as "small bungaloes"? Or even small bungholes?


Mike,

I would definitely say not. I've been out there on and off all through my life and I've never heard any of those people call their club bath houses or cabanas that. I have heard them use the term bungalows though. The are generally referring to the little houses on some of the side streets in and around particularly Easthampton. Many of them look a lot like that photo you just produced.


Thus sayeth "the Lurker"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()