Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

It's surely not dispositive but I do think it provides some insight into where they were in the planning process at that time.  

Because members were going to need to walk from the Inn to that first tee and then back to the Inn from the 18th green I would think that yardage would be something CBM would have wanted to be pretty precise about before starting his routing.

I don't think he cared how far it was beyond it being a short walk.

Sven

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Did CBM not write that 200-300 yards when he was in his early 70's.  Darn good memory to remember it even as close as 200-300 yards.  By today's measurement it is 280 yards, less to the back of the then 18th green.  I agree with Sven, it matters only that it was close, not precisely what it was.


Sven,

Is the picture of the model yours?  Do you have a picture of the whole thing?  Is there no indication on it of its date?  The cape hole is in the bay, so I guess it predates when that was moved.

[MCirba]

Bryan,

He was quoted saying that on Dec 15th 1906.  Thanks for the exact measurement.

[Bryan Izatt]

I stand corrected.

[Bryan Izatt]

There's been so much discussion about roads and the relative lack thereof when NGLA first opened.  My question is When did Shrubland Road appear?  Was it already there in some fashion when NGLAI'd  guess that as built?  If it was there, did MacDonald ever try to have it moved?  Was it built at a the border of two separate parcels? 

If you look back at post #896 I overlaid the 1904 USGS topography on the current aerial and there was an unapproved road that crossed the NGLA property where Shrubland Rd is today.  So it predated NGLA. l don't know if Macdonld ever tried to move it.  Since it predated NGLA I'd guess that it was the reason that the two main properties are two separate properties.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Holy shit, 51 pages!! It would take undaunted courage for the team of researchers attached to www.cbmacdonald.com to comb all the way through this.

So...have any new *facts* turned up relating specifically to CBM's physical presence somewhere anywhere?

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

Not so much about CBM, but this thread could keep a team of psychologists busy for years. I understand what passive-aggressive means now..

[MCirba]

I probably shouldn't try to do this with a tired brain on a Friday afternoon and I'll probably only be able to do the shorthand version of things so please be merciful.  

Ok...stream of consciousness time.

I really don't believe that CBM cared about providing a housing component for his members to the Ideal Course plan and I really don't believe the members cared all that much about it but I think he included it in his plans and they accepted it for two reasons;

1) Sweetening the deal of offering something financially tangible as CBM stated
2) The reality of the logistics of building a course/club several hours away from NYC and further for the rest of his National membership and needing to provide somewhere for them to stay, and do the necessities of life while visiting the club

I also think Macdonald believed he could build a course on about 110 acres.   He said so, and I examined his writings about ideal holes and if anything, he was stubborn about the advent of the Haskell Ball, arguing that some holes had in fact been improved by the new, hotter ball.   His basic standard was still to create a course in the 6000-6200 yard range as ideal, and railed against the trend towards making courses too long.

Certainly he knew he could get his golf course on much less than 200 acres and in fact, did, using only about 160-165 acres, measured generously with some spacious gaps between holes.   Indeed, in my earlier example I mentioned he could have have parallel 50 yard wide fairways separated by another 50 yards with 30 yards on the sides of each of them and still had an acre (70 yards) available running the length of 2 miles.   He had TONS of room.  200 acres on a treeless site is massive.

I think when CBM made his first offer on 120 acres near the Canal he knew of the Developer's plans for housing in the area so only bid on what he thought he needed for the 110 acres for the golf course and 10 acres for the clubhouse and parking.   It's exactly what he wrote he needed for those items in the 1904 Agreement, in fact.  

The idea that it was a different site so he'd need only 120 acres there and 200 acres or 67% more for the golf course on Sebonac Neck doesn't hold water for me, especially when one looks at a topographical map of the areas in question.   In fact, Jeff Brauer weighed in that the second site looked even more favorable for golf in terms of landforms.

But when December 1906 came along, CBM secured 200 acres as per his original 1904 agreement that included Founders lots.   Here's why I think he did it.

1) That's what he originally agreed to with the Founders
2) He was hedging his bets that he probably needed to provide some additional lodging options beyond the 30 rooms being built in the Shinnecock Inn that were to house members of Shinnecock, motorists, and National members.
3) He knew he needed to start and end his golf course near the Shinnecock Inn and he'd be an idiot not to want to get to Peconic Bay two miles away, and Macdonald was not an idiot.  
4) The two major features CBM identified during his horse rides, the Alps Hill and the site for the Eden green were not conducive to his out and back routing,   Measured on a slight diagnonal, it is over 700 yards from the middle of the Alps Green to the middle of the Eden green, which is a big reason that the routing of NGLA looks a bit like a snake that has swallowed a baby pig.  CBM would have known this and it was certainly a problem to be solved in terms of overall land usage.   Max Behr told us that Macdonald bought enough land to embrace all of the natural features he had found and these two were the furthest apart.
5) Behr also told us that in laying out the course "...no concession was made to economy in the use of land.   Even so, a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes."

Whether CBM was restricted in terms of land usage for housing by the Development company is something to consider.   However, I think it's likely that something smaller like quarter acre or half acre lots for bungalows would not have been seen as direct competition by the Developer and likely something Macdonald and the club could have done if they wanted.   Indeed, one of the Founders thought they were going to build bungalows after the Shinnecock Inn burned down as seen in Bryan's article yesterday.  

The following article from the April 13, 1908 Brooklyn Daily Eagle describes a couple of related items.   First, there was consideration that the Inn may be rebuilt, only this time presumably larger because the Inn was planned before it was known Macdonald was going to locate his course there, which is news to me.   It would also explain why Macdonald decided to locate his first and 18th holes there originally.   I think Macdonald probably saw the Inn as temporarily solving his lodging problem but hedged his bets upwards in terms of total acreage as I mentioned above.





So I think that the whole question of what to do with excess land, how to handle lodging needs, etc., were still on the table as of this date, and as seen in the article from July 1908 that Bryan shared yesterday.

But I also think we sometimes miss the human factor here.   After many years of dreaming and planning Macdonald was now given free rein on 200 acres of land!!   Can you imagine the exuberance he felt?   I'm sure he pushed the limits in every way, in terms of hole options, land forms, and routing considerations so that he'd maximize the golf course in any way possible.

I'm thinking he figured he'd figure out the housing/lodging issue later and in the end, probably figured if the results were as good as he believed, he'd rather ask for forgiveness than permission.

Frankly, I don't think the issue of what to do with excess land, or how much excess land existed ever was determined.   As discussed in the 1912 Letter to Founders, I think they all just agreed to table it and other options became available over time in terms of the transportation and lodging challenges and the whole issue just got tabled indefinitely..

Have a great weekend, and have mercy.  

[MCirba]

Mark,

Not so much about CBM, but this thread could keep a team of psychologists busy for years. I understand what passive-aggressive means now..

Speaking of...   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,

It's surely not dispositive but I do think it provides some insight into where they were in the planning process at that time. 

Because members were going to need to walk from the Inn to that first tee and then back to the Inn from the 18th green I would think that yardage would be something CBM would have wanted to be pretty precise about before starting his routing.

I don't think he cared how far it was beyond it being a short walk.

Sven

Lets not forget he had left that 6 acres for his own clubhouse, which may have added to the distance......

[MCirba]

Jeff,

Shhhhh....don't tell Patrick.

[DMoriarty]

A lot has been posted today, but I'm not sure much new has been said.  I'll try to address some of it if I have tim, starting with Mike's long summary post a few above.

Mike doesn't really seem to realize it, but the first half of his post above is spent discussing why, in 1904, CBM might have included in his letter the 'for instance' about possible 1.5 Acre building lots for the Founders.  While it is interesting to speculate about such things, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what happened at NGLA.  I'm not going to go through it all again, except to note (despite Mike's past assertions to the contrary) no one has found any quotes by CBM reiterating his suggest with regard to NGLA.  In fact his December 1906 letter to the Founders makes no mention of the real estate component, and actually suggests that "investment" section of the previous letter was outside the spirit of original idea.

In the second half of Mike's post above, he tries to come up with reasons why this 1904 suggestion ought to be read as if if it definitely applied to NGLA.  Like many of Mike's stream attempts to summarize his position, it reads a lot more like "wishful thinking" than any sort of coherent analysis of the relevant source material.  And therein lies the problem.  Mike's theories are not fact dependent.  He ignores some facts,  and simply makes up others. 

There are a number of examples but let me highlight just two. First, Mike wrote that CBM "was hedging his bets that he probably needed to provide some additional lodging options beyond the 30 rooms being built in the Shinnecock Inn that were to house members of Shinnecock, motorists, and National members."   CBM was hedging his bets?   Mike just made this up.  There is nothing in the record to suggest that CBM was hedging his bets.  And, given that there was a huge development planned adjacent to the course, there was no need to hedge his bets.  And, the record suggests that he had agreed to the developer's restrictions on the property!  Mike just ignores all of this because he really, really wants CBM to have still been interested in a housing component in December 1906, so he makes up something about CBM hedging his bets.  Wishful thinking.  Not historical analysis.

Second, Mike decided that he can just ignore the developer's restriction on the use of the property by making up his own limitation on the developer's limitation: "I think it's likely that something smaller like quarter acre or half acre lots for bungalows would not have been seen as direct competition by the Developer and likely something Macdonald and the club could have done if they wanted " More wishful thinking on Mike's part, especially concerning what is "likely." Without getting intocit again, that is not how these types of limitations worked.  Moreover, there is nothing in the developer's statement which supports Mike's reading.  (If anything, with the clubhouse example, the developer's statement implies that such small structures were NOT exempt from the limitation.)

I'll not bother to go through each of Mike's other points, but it is more of the same.  Just "stream of consciousness" thoughts on how Mike would like things to have been. But historical analysis is not an exercise in creative writing where we just throw out whatever comes to mind as if it were fact.   It is not writing fiction.  Our theories must be based on facts, shaped by facts, and lead by facts.  Mike's approach seems the opposite of this. What he considers "facts" are based on his theories, shaped by his theories, and lead by his theories.

[DMoriarty]

However, I also think the fact that David measured his route out two miles from the location of the Shinnecock Inn, not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain he knew precisely where the Inn would be by December when he signed the option.   Recall that Macdonald said he had secured two miles long by 4 acres wide.

Interesting logic on your part, Mike, but you are wrong about what I measured.  Will you remain logically consistent when you learn that I actually measured to the end of CBM's property as depicted on the blueprint?  By your logic, with the actual facts bracketed in:

The fact that David measured his route out two miles from the [end of the property], not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain that CBM knew precisely where [the property ended] by December when he signed the option.

So what is it going to be?  Will you follow the facts (and your logic) even where the facts directly contradict your pet theory that they hadn't figured out or mapped the dimensions of the parcel this point.  Or will backtrack to try and make the facts fit your theory?
___________________________________________________________________________________

Along the same lines, let's back up a bit further and look at your reasoning about CBM's statement that the first tee was 200-300 yards from the Shinnecock Inn.  You argue that because CBM did not tell us exactly how far the first tee was from the Shinnecock Inn, that he hadn't yet routed the course.  Sven and Bryan pointed out the rather obvious problems with this position, and I agree with them.  Rather than go through it again, I'd rather focus on your reasoning, to again give you a chance to show us whether you are following facts here, or just making things up to try and support your preconceived notions.  

You reason, "because he hadn't routed the course, he wasn't even sure where his first tee would be located yet."  The underlying premise is that, had he known the measure, it would have been strong evidence that he had already routed the course.  (I personally think even the 200-300 yard figure is pretty strong evidence that the routing process was well underway, but let's focus on an exact measure.)  

Keeping your premise in mind, consider what CBM wrote about the Cape in December 1906:  
"At the narrow end of Bullshead Bay, where the promontory joins the mainland, is an opportunity for a perfect water hazard to be arranged of varying widths so that a strong driver with a following wind may attempt a 240 yard carry to the green, it will also be possible to take a shorter angle to the fair green and to get home in two . . .."

Keep in mind that, according to the blueprint, a substantial portion of this hole (including the green) was under water.

If CBM had not seriously begun the routing and planning process then how could he have told us these details about this particular hole?

If CBM had not already been measuring and mapping the course, how could he tell us that the longest carry would be 240 yards?  

Here again is a chance for you to follow the facts, instead of manipulating them.  By YOUR logic, these sorts of details and exact distances ought to mean something.   Will you accept that, or will you try to explain them away?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's another early newspaper story to add a bit of colour to the discussion.  It's from the Brooklyn Eagle September 28, 1912.

Who knew that 103 years ago that access whoring was already alive.  After CBM spent so many years promoting the ideal links in so many newspapers is it any wonder that so many wanted to come and kick the tires and see what all the fuss was about?

[Bryan Izatt]

Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.

With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?

From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.

With respect to the 18th, the first part of the hole is right on the water in the model.  Today there is 50 to 70 yards of land between the hole and the Bay.  Did the hole get moved inland a bit or was a lot of fill done to move the coastline out or was the model not exact at that level?

Certainly the 1st is a dogleg if you play it out to the right.  It looks pretty straight if you take the aggressive line over the left side bunkers.  The 18th is less obviously a dogleg unless you play out right off the tee.  The picture below shows two lines to play the holes.  No doubt Patrick, our resident playing expert, can fill us in on how practical these alternate routes are.  The c.1929 drawing certainly shows a straight line from tee to green.

As to the room in the middle, the section where the clubhouse now sits is about 70 yards wide from the left edge of the 18th fairway to the left edge of the left bunkers on the 1st.  That's the way it's represented on the model.  The middle section is about the same width as the 18th fairway.  The 18th fairway today is about 70 yards wide, hence the middle section was about 70 yards across.

For perspective, the clubhouse currently is about 25 yards deep, back to front.  That doesn't leave much room on either side of the clubhouse separating it from the possible lines of play on the 1st and 18th.  So, yes, there is some room there but it is a snug fit.  I doubt very many organizations would build a clubhouse in such a tight space today with all the liability issues.  But then, I'm reminded that Cabot Links clubhouse is immediately adjacent too the 18th green, so it is done even today.

[MCirba]

I think Macdonald was focused on creating the best golf course possible and he simply used the best available landforms to site today's 1st and 18th.  To suggest that he made them both dogleg to accommodate a future clubhouse between them is sort of silly, no?

[MCirba]

Macdonald was nothing if not precise and mathematical.  Go back and read his article from Outing Magazine.  Read his letter from July 1910 to a club in PA.  This was a science to him...go back and read what he wrote about the ideal land and soils being half the battle and the rest being just mathematics, gardening, and experience.  

In the Dec 1906 article he's quoted telling us the mathematical dimensions of 200 acres he's secured, 2 miles long by 4 acres wide.  Yet, he can't tell us if his first tee is 200 or 300 yards (what's the margin of error in that estimate?) from a known fixed point in the planned site of the Shinnecock Inn?

I would suggest it was because he hadn't placed his first tee yet or calculated where it should be for the type of hole he was going to create there to fit in with the rest that were yet to be determined but knew anything further than 2 or 3 hundred yards to have to walk to and from at the start and finish was anything but ideal.

He just knew by necessity at that juncture that he had to use the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse and thus had to site his starting and finishing holes near there...in the general vicinity...within 200 or 300 yards.

Related, was anyone else surprised as I was to read in that 1908 article i posted yesterday that the Shinnecock Inn was located prior to Macdonald deciding to locate his club and course there?   It certainly puts a somewhat different spin on things related to the decision making process.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Regarding housing, I don't know if this is relevant or has already been covered, but there was no integrated-housing plan (that I know of). 205 acres were purchased, then the course was routed. (Allowances of land required for clubhouses and maintenance buildings were made; I don't know any specifics.) They needed about 110 acres to accommodate the course and buildings -- the short-term plan post Shinnecock Inn fire to build a "locker house with baths" and a pro shop attached.

The plan in 1906 was to distribute the unneeded land in roughly 1.5-acre parcels to each founder in fee simple. (Founders were to number about 60 and contribute $1,000 each. In return they would receive a debenture.)

A real estate committee was then to be formed. Its job was to decide on the best way to subdivide the unnecessary land and dispose of it to the founders.

As of 1911, though, the excess land had not been divided or parceled. The land remained under control of the club. There was no plan, at least up to then, for housing. There was just (undivided) surplus land.

[MCirba]

Thanks Mark...greatly appreciate the clarification.

Any idea if there were any restrictions on the Real Estate committee in how they could use surplus land?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sorry Mike I got nothing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven, I have been told 18 green moved as a result of the clubhouse, but I am not sure.....

Jeff,

Who told you that the 18th green was moved as a result of the clubhouse ?

[Sven Nilsen]

They needed about 110 acres to accommodate the course and buildings -- the short-term plan post Shinnecock Inn fire to build a "locker house with baths" and a pro shop attached.

The plan in 1906 was to distribute the unneeded land in roughly 1.5-acre parcels to each founder in fee simple. (Founders were to number about 60 and contribute $1,000 each. In return they would receive a debenture.)

A real estate committee was then to be formed. Its job was to decide on the best way to subdivide the unnecessary land and dispose of it to the founders.

Mark:

I'd be interested in seeing any source material on the items above.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Related, was anyone else surprised as I was to read in that 1908 article i posted yesterday that the Shinnecock Inn was located prior to Macdonald deciding to locate his club and course there?   It certainly puts a somewhat different spin on things related to the decision making process.

Mike:

The exact quote is that the club had not selected "a habitation" at the time the Inn was built.  You have interpreted this to mean the club and course.  Another interpretation is they are referring only to a clubhouse, which is what we've been saying all along.

Sven

[DMoriarty]

Mark,  while I appreciate your input, I'm afraid you'd most recent post might set the thread  circling back to the beginning yet again.  As Sven suggests, it would be great if you could provide sources for each of the points you mention, so that we can (hopefully) determine what has been covered and what hasn't. Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  The Shinnecock Inn did not open until the 1907 season.