Lido - A Redux

[Gib_Papazian]

Gentlemen,

I have not read every word of the thread, so please tell me if I'm repeating a point from a previous post.

Uncle George and I spent quite a bit of time researching Lido - much of it focused beyond the actual golf course. Both of us concluded the reasons for its demise, putting aside the storms, was the sheer amount of capital outlay spent building the course - combined with astronomical construction costs and maintenance for a "clubhouse/resort" of mind-bending size.

Last year, I left a meeting in Oceanside and went down to have another look at the building, which now appears to be an enormous condo complex. I understand the "vision" - a fabulous summer resort with every imaginable amenity a short distance from NYC - with a fabulous golf course; in short a CCFAD open to anyone with enough purse to pay the stroke.

My sense is that Lido could not be placed in category of "exclusive country club" - á la Piping Rock or NGLA. It was a business venture with a pro forma, investors and an expectation of profit. It collapsed for the same reason other upscale quasi-public access ventures go bust; when a giant debt load (with ongoing maintenance) meets an economic downturn, the shit is bound to hit the fan.

Barny (who is the poster child for old-line Rust Belt money) is missing the point here. One of the reasons so many high-tone, STRICTLY PRIVATE, upper-echelon enclaves survived is the simple fact their blue-blood membership enjoyed depression-proof fortunes. When the pyramid scheme spigot gets turned off and the flow of easy quatloos dries up, the first budget item to get the red pencil in middle class families are non-essentials.    
      
Do you think if Lido was where captains of industry, power brokers and Wall Street money changers quietly gathered behind high fences they would have let it go bust? Bullshit. Lido was a speculative project, not a private club where the *real* elites and their families went to avoid the unwashed. Otherwise, it would have been a mysterious monolith like Charlie's Chocolate Factory or Pine Valley, not a place with turnstiles.  

[Sven Nilsen]

This Aug. 1932 Golf Illustrated article does a good job of illustrating what the resort had turned into.  Perhaps a puff piece, but it does point out the scale of the endeavor.

[Sven Nilsen]

Although it doesn't discuss Lido in particular, the following article gives you a contemporaneous account of how many clubs were dealing with the effects of the Depression (Golf Illustrated, May 1932).

[Sven Nilsen]

A proposal for a US rota of championship courses for the Open (Golf Illustrated - Feb. 1923).

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Macdonald does not say the year that he visited Lido and was disappointed but it makes me wonder if the course was ever in the condition he wanted. Even today, five years is considered the amount of time it takes for a course to mature. So at Lido there were alterations that surprised Macdonald and of which he never approved, and holes that had to be rebuilt because he incorrectly calculated the tides. The legend may be bigger than the reality.

Anthony

[Sven Nilsen]

Macdonald does not say the year that he visited Lido and was disappointed but it makes me wonder if the course was ever in the condition he wanted. Even today, five years is considered the amount of time it takes for a course to mature. So at Lido there were alterations that surprised Macdonald and of which he never approved, and holes that had to be rebuilt because he incorrectly calculated the tides. The legend may be bigger than the reality.

Anthony

Anthony:

Do you think Darwin and Ross were just blowing smoke when they declared Lido one of the three finest courses in the country? 

Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Anthony, in one of the older threads, George Bahto indicates CBM was disappointed with Lido as soon as it was built.  The fairways did not have as many folds as he planned.  George says:

"one of the main reasons CBM was disappointed with the end result of the Lido course and it contractors was that so much money was spent on the landfill operation many of the finite features that were supposed to go onto the course were eliminated ....  most notable the ideas he had about the various (different) ripples the fairways were supposed to get."

Maybe George is wrong.  He says he got a whole lot more info about Lido than appears in Scotland's Gfit, though, and was considering writing a book about it.

[Sven Nilsen]

Anthony, in one of the older threads, George Bahto indicates CBM was disappointed with Lido as soon as it was built.  The fairways did not have as many folds as he planned.  George says:

"one of the main reasons CBM was disappointed with the end result of the Lido course and it contractors was that so much money was spent on the landfill operation many of the finite features that were supposed to go onto the course were eliminated ....  most notable the ideas he had about the various (different) ripples the fairways were supposed to get."

Maybe George is wrong.  He says he got a whole lot more info about Lido than appears in Scotland's Gfit, though, and was considering writing a book about it.

Jim:

I'd ask you the same question, do you think Darwin and Ross were just blowing smoke?

Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Sven, not blowing smoke, but maybe a situation similar to Shadow Creek, where an impressive course gets even higher marks due to the engineering marvel of creating it out of nothing. 

I guess CBM could be disappointed, and the course still rank among the top few in the nation.  Also, maybe George didn't get everything right. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, not blowing smoke, but maybe a situation similar to Shadow Creek, where an impressive course gets even higher marks due to the engineering marvel of creating it out of nothing. 

I guess CBM could be disappointed, and the course still rank among the top few in the nation.  Also, maybe George didn't get everything right. 

Perhaps.

I haven't read a Donald Ross quote yet that leads me to question his credibility.

What I'd like to get away from in this thread is the questioning.  Perhaps Lido wasn't all that it could have been.  But we know what it could have been, as the design principles in each of the holes laid out has not only been described, but for the most part has been "replicated" elsewhere (and it could be argued that the Lido originals might have been the best of the bunch).  I spend a good amount of time on a course that makes me confront CBM's "ideals."  I have yet to think that particular course doesn't offer interesting golf, and I have a hard time believing that a replication of the holes of Lido wouldn't do the same.

Sven

[V. Kmetz]

Hello,

Perhaps.

I haven't read a Donald Ross quote yet that leads me to question his credibility.

...But we know what it could have been, as the design principles in each of the holes laid out has not only been described, but for the most part has been "replicated" elsewhere (and it could be argued that the Lido originals might have been the best of the bunch).  I spend a good amount of time on a course that makes me confront CBM's "ideals."  I have yet to think that particular course doesn't offer interesting golf, and I have a hard time believing that a replication of the holes of Lido wouldn't do the same.

Sven

SN...well and soberly stated, imo.

It's only now that I'm beginning to consider Lido with any interest, but my first few glances make it seem that it was precious to CBM, and treated with acclaim by the golfing/GCA intelligentsia of that era; and that's enough for me to think the ethos (and GCA iterations of that ethos) of the course is worthy of replication, as I appreciate the other products of that design imagination and similar acclaim, a great deal.

cheers

vk

[Adam Warren]

Adam:

When you getting around to digging more deeply into it, you can start here:

"In the matter of much discussed "championship courses" [Donald] Ross thought there were only three in the United States really adapted for a supreme test of open championship golf, the National Links, Lido and Pine Valley, none of which was built by himself."

Golf Illustrated, Sept. 1922

Sven

Sven,

This does exactly as I stated previously.  While being a very worthy person to quote from, it is still a quote, an opinion from someone.  Additionally, I think there is much question whether Ross ever saw all of the courses HE designed, much less those of other architects.  From some of that statements being made here, it sounds as the plans appear greater than the results.  Perhaps all Ross ever saw was the plans as well.  Food for thought.

Also, in the same vein of many like Mucci, you have elected to pull out and respond to only the items of my post that you have the ability to dispute.  You addressed forced carries, but not width.  You haven't addressed mine and many peoples concerns that much of the love for Lido could be due to the engineering of the course (as has been mentioned with comparisons to Shadow Creek).  How about the issues of sustainability that is so often mentioned as signs of great architecture.  Can you speak to these issues that have been ignored multiple times or only the simple issues to which you have responded?

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

To answer the question could Darwin and others been blowing smoke:

A) Yes, of course they could have. I never met any of those guys and maybe there were good buddies of Macdonald and wanted to trumpet his layout. Darwin raved about National Golf Links when it opened and Macdonald went on to make significant alterations there.

B) Maybe they weren't blowing smoke but envisioning what the course would one day become but, in fact, did not.

Jim: I question George's assertion he has a whole lot more about Lido until I see it. I'd also like to know the sources. Why would George hold back the information on a course that ostensibly was as good as National?

I also find it interesting that Ross lauded Pine Valley, National and Lido. I need to reread Golf Has Never Failed Me to see if he references them.

Anthony

[Sven Nilsen]

Anthony:

In Darwin's 1922 article (posted earlier in the thread), he notes that PV and Lido were recently new courses to him, but NGLA was an old friend.  This suggests to me he saw the course a good bit of time after it had opened and matured, and that he was talking about the actual golf course, not some mental image of how CBM's plans were going to work out.

As for Ross, his quote came out around the same time.  I don't have any evidence that he actually saw the course, but I also have don't have any reason to not take his words as sincere.

And they were only two of the many.

Sven

[BCrosby]

Are we really arguing about whether Ross and Darwin meant what they said? That they might have been making stuff up?

Bob

[Sven Nilsen]

Also, in the same vein of many like Mucci, you have elected to pull out and respond to only the items of my post that you have the ability to dispute.  You addressed forced carries, but not width.  You haven't addressed mine and many peoples concerns that much of the love for Lido could be due to the engineering of the course (as has been mentioned with comparisons to Shadow Creek).  How about the issues of sustainability that is so often mentioned as signs of great architecture.  Can you speak to these issues that have been ignored multiple times or only the simple issues to which you have responded?

Sometimes when part of an argument is so laughable as to rise to absurdity, the rest of the case doesn't need to be made.  But since you asked.

Show me where Lido was criticized for being too narrow.  While you're at it, take a look at some of those photos above, and tell me you don't see something akin to the open playing field of the Old Course.  Since most of the holes were the same as those built at NGLA, Piping Rock, St. Louis, Chicago, etc., are you also criticizing those courses for their lack of width?  If not, why is Lido different?

I'm sure the project was praised as an engineering masterpiece, but what I've highlighted in this thread has been the praise for the merits of the golf.  And here's what you and others are missing with respect to why it was so highly lauded.  The course was built during a time when American golf was being constantly compared to the original, or the seaside links of England and Scotland.  Lido was praised as the closest thing in America to those links courses, and by some was considered greater than any of them.  It had the sandy base, the wind, the dunes (albeit artificially created) and the areas of rushes, all of which helped it to meet up with what was considered then ideal elements for golf.  Go back and read the last paragraph of Crane's piece posted earlier in the thread and you'll get a good idea as to why the Lido was so special for an American golf course.

Lido also had another thing going for it.  Like Pine Valley it was built on a championship scale, while remaining playable for all kinds of golfers from its three sets of tees.  There are numerous accounts of the difficulty of the course for the good player where it is noted that the course played a good five shots harder than its peers.  Part of the praise of the course came from the thought that the U.S. now had a modern course, along with Pine Valley, that could offer the best players in the game a worthy challenge.

If you want to start debating the individual golf holes that comprised the course, feel free.  I know the 4th was all world, as it was still making "Best 18" lists as late as 1942.  The Redan was considered as good as any built.  The Eden and the Alps were considered to be better than the holes they were modeled after.  I don't want to rely on the "template" argument here, but it is hard to see how the collection of holes CBM put on this particular course wasn't, if not the best, close to the finest combination of his standards and originals ever laid out.  If your grief is with those template holes themselves, then you and I are having a debate that is a non starter.

As for your questions on sustainability, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at.  If you're talking about the damage done to the course due to its location, I have indeed addressed that earlier in the thread.  If you're talking about the modern day concept ala the redone Pinehurst or TD's Dismal Red, I guess we can also start critiquing the Romans for using lead in their pipes and Ford for not developing electric cars instead of the gas powered engine.  You can't apply modern day concepts to something produced 100 years ago.

Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Jim: I question George's assertion he has a whole lot more about Lido until I see it. I'd also like to know the sources. Why would George hold back the information on a course that ostensibly was as good as National?

Here's what George said in 2003: "I’ve only published a small portion of what I have on the entire Lido story and would like to publish a book about the Lido one day but I doubt if it would sell. .... (we do have some publishing problems these days). I’ve uncovered a mother-lode of info and pictures recently and we’ll wait and see where it all goes."

Are we really arguing about whether Ross and Darwin meant what they said? That they might have been making stuff up?

Bob

Bob, I think we're trying to sort out the contradictory evidence, or statements, that have come up about Lido.  They go to heart of much of Lido's history, whether the course got chopped up, and how great it was.  From a post George wrote in 2009:

"Lost to the course when the “ocean holes were sold:

* 1st tee lost (it played from just short of Lido Blvd) and the 1st fairway was “inland” of the blvd
* 10th hole - same situation as above
* 7th hole: the reverse situation - the tee was inland but lost was the entire 7th hole fairway to green
* the entire Biarritz was along the sea originally (moved a bit, twice later) was lost
* the Leven hole #9 entirely lost
* #18 the Mackenzie hole - the tee inland - but like the 7th, fairway to green totally lost
* there was a large practice area in this plot as well"

From that same post:  

"The enormous cost of maintaining the huge building dragged the club to near rock-bottom, forcing a sale of the property. Lido finally fell into the hands of real estate developers with little interest in golf - from there, the slide was inevitable.  Waterfront property was ruthlessly sold off for housing without regard for the integrity of the course. Lido Boulevard once a narrow, little used road close to the beach, became a major thoroughfare.  The tees of many holes were moved, shortening the course and leaving the once mighty Lido a shadow of its former glory."

It would be real cool to see the additional materials George wrote about back in 2003.    

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:

We covered this.  The plasticine plan matches the 1940 aerial (other than the 8th).  I think George got this one wrong.

Specifically:

-The 1st and 10th tees are both visible in both the model and the aerial in the same locations.
-The 7th fairway is right where he laid it out.
-The 8th was changed and moved slightly inland, but not due to land being sold off.
-The 9th is just about the same.
-The 18th is right where he laid it out.

[Craig Disher]

I don't understand how George could have made those statements in 2009. I was the one who found the 1940 Lido aerial in 2003 and shared it with George some time later. It should have been clear to him that there was no evidence for the post he made in 2009 regarding the alterations on the holes south of the main road - the ocean holes. Obviously, as Sven points out above, except for the 8th, they are nearly identical to the plan and course map from the 1920s.

George told me he had been in contact with the son of one of the owners as well as golfers who had played the course. Memories and second hand stories can be faulty but unless someone is really devious, photos tell a very accurate story.

[Josh Bills]

As for photos, has anyone seen or secured the photos taken by Supt. Mayo? 



From Golfdom October 1942

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm baffled why anyone would hire an expensive architect to recreate a non-existent golf course for two reasons.

1) I would want me architect to design something of his own creation.

2) If I'm going to reproduce a golf course, why do I need an architect and not just an extremely talented construction company who can look at photographs and drawings and reproduce what was there?

Anthony

I wanted to get back to this point from Anthony earlier in the thread.

Assuming you were going to recreate Lido, why would you hire an architect?

First, I don't think it would be possible to do a foot by foot copy of the original.  Pretty much all we have on the course has been posted in this thread.  There is no detailed topo, no hole by hole maps, no green drawings.

You could pretty much nail down the location of every feature of the course, but once you started with the third dimension of elevation, you'd run into problems.  Just how deep were the bunkers, how high were the dunes, how elevated was the alternate fairway at the 4th.

And this is where an architect would come in.  You'd need someone to interpret how CBM would have wanted the features to lie, to determine what bunkers should be shallow and how slopes should sit on the greens and to match it all within the frameworks of the shot values that each individual hole represented. 

You'd also need their expertise for drainage concerns in addition to the nuts and bolts of every thing else that goes into the construction process.

Personally, I'd want Pete Dye for this job.

Sven

[Jud_T]

Sven,

Great work.  This brings up an interesting question, which I tried to address on Pat's Streamsong thread.  Aside from the large number of guys who would gladly take this job for the paycheck, how do you sell one of the top names on this gig if the intention is to do as exact a replica as possible?  And how is the design then attributed?  Is someone like Doak, Hanse or C&C going to be happy to play along since Mosaic is a deep-pocketed client with the proper motivation from a golf standpoint, even if there's very little original creative input involved?  Is this an opportunity to give a shot to one of the up and coming archies?  Are there any routing issues surrounding added length?  Will they stick with 3 tees?  At the very least it's going to be a very fun project to observe in progress if it goes ahead...

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Great work.  This brings up an interesting question, which I tried to address on Pat's Streamsong thread.  Aside from the large number of guys who would gladly take this job for the paycheck, how do you sell one of the top names on this gig if the intention is to do as exact a replica as possible?  And how is the design then attributed?  Is someone like Doak, Hanse or C&C going to be happy to play along since Mosaic is a deep-pocketed client with the proper motivation from a golf standpoint, even if there's very little original creative input involved?  Is this an opportunity to give a shot to one of the up and coming archies?  Are there any routing issues surrounding added length?  Will they stick with 3 tees?  At the very least it's going to be a very fun project to observe in progress if it goes ahead...

Jud:

I'd rather not get too far down this road, but I'll give an answer before moving on.

Even though there is already a basic blueprint, I think there'd be enough of a challenge in the project to attract a big name.  After all, they'd be faced with battling a ghost.  

There are two aspects of the project that you'd have to get right:

1.  The details.  This would take someone with either an innate ability to mimic the MacRaynor style, or someone who has studied their work enough to be able to figure out the little intricacies.  You're not going to get all of them exactly right, but what you do needs to make sense.

2.  The construction.  Wherever the course was built, the plan for the maintenance meld would have to work.  Hopefully it would be on a site blessed with sandy ground, as I don't see this working anywhere else.  You'd need an architect and a talented team familiar with moving large amounts of earth with the skill so that over time, just as how Crane described the original, the course would grow to look like it had always been there.  

There's a third component involving a modernization of the course, and an adaptation of the design for its new purpose (if its a resort course, there's a host of considerations to take into account).  If its on a windy site, would you need to stretch it out much longer?  Would you need to realign certain holes for predominate wind directions, or do you just need a team that pays attention to the daily setup?  

Who do you know that fits these categories?  Doak springs to mind, but I don't think its a project he'd want.  Like C&C, I think it doesn't fit his mantra, and he's already done his ode to CBM.  Next on the list is Brian Silva, who I think would be a great candidate.  I still like the idea of Pete Dye being involved in some capacity, with Alice offering her expertise as well.

Here's the attribution:

Lido Links (2018 - Silva, Dye and Dye, inspired by the original Macdonald/Raynor design)

Whoever it would be, they'd need to have the interest to remain true to the goal, and the humility to not want to put too much of their own mark on it.

Sven

[Josh Tarble]

Sven,
Thank you for pulling this together.  It definitely piques my interest in a Lido reproduction. I can see the fascination with rebuilding it but can also see where the original course may be remembered more fondly than it was originally.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
Thank you for pulling this together.  It definitely piques my interest in a Lido reproduction. I can see the fascination with rebuilding it but can also see where the original course may be remembered more fondly than it was originally.

Well, since it was originally thought of as one of the finest courses in the country, and by some as the greatest course in the world, it would be hard to remember it much more fondly.

I don't buy the thought that folks were influenced by the magnitude of the engineering, and somehow that effected their opinion of the actual golf course.  Its often hard to separate the result from the process, but it was the result that was put under critical review.  Darwin did not write about Lido as an engineering masterpiece, he wrote about it as an excellent golf course. 

Judging by this thread, comments made by Mucci relaying the thoughts of those that had actually played the course and all of the contemporaneous reports of its greatness, I think the opposite from what you suggest is happening.  The course seems to be remembered in a worse light today than it was thought of back then.

Sven