When I first heard of the  Lido, my reaction was similar (I think) to many here . . . what a shame it's gone . . . as good as NGLA and PV . . . the greatest architectural and construction achievement ever . . . another MacDonald monument . . . etc.

But as I've read and thought about it more, I must confess that my opinion has changed for the worse.  I just cant see that the Lido represented much of anything that was good for golf, then or now.  Sure it was built by a "Golden Age" legend, but wasnt it contrary to much for what Golden Age stood?   Think about it.  The Lido was:
-- shoehorned into a piece of property that by all accounts was inhospitable to golf.  
-- built with complete disregard for he lay of the land, in a location chosen not for its proximity to people rather than its golfing potential.
-- built at an outrageous financial cost, enough to build 10s or maybe 100s of courses on better land, which was still readily available.
-- built with disregard for the economic and social realities of the time.    
-- built on soil inhospitable to growing anything.
-- created only by the means of massive earth movement.
-- chosen in part for its proximity to a beach, as part of a resort.

Moreover, the course represents Man's ultimate arrogance: That given  enough money and the proper technology, man can impose his will on nature and not only duplicate it, but better it.  

I know that chronologically, great courses were built after the Lido, but symbolically, the Lido seems to represent values which would undermine the Golden Age, or at least repress it for a very long time.

Do you agree or disagree?   Did "Golden Age Architecture" jump the shark with the Lido?

Other than representing another example of great MacDonald/Raynor strategy, is there anything positive about the legacy of the Lido?

[As was explained to me not so long ago, "jumping the shark" is a term used to describe the event which symbolizes the beginning of an inevitable decline or demise--  Named for the dreaded Happy Days episode where Fonzie tried to jump the shark tank.]

Jim, I figured that answer was coming, as that is the conventional wisdom and as far as I know, entirely correct.  Nonetheless, I am not really after a historical account of the the decline of golf in the middle of this century . . .

Rather, I am talking more symbolically I guess, suggesting that with the Lido, the Golden Age had lost its way.  

Perhaps 'jump the shark' isnt the quite correct term, but I am sticking with it, because in my mind the Lido may be the point where the "golden age" betrayed its values and sold out.  

DMoriarty,

When I first heard of the  Lido, my reaction was similar (I think) to many here . . . what a shame it's gone . . . as good as NGLA and PV . . . the greatest architectural and construction achievement ever . . . another MacDonald monument . . . etc.

But as I've read and thought about it more, I must confess that my opinion has changed for the worse.  I just cant see that the Lido represented much of anything that was good for golf, then or now.  Sure it was built by a "Golden Age" legend, but wasnt it contrary to much for what Golden Age stood?

NO.
NGLA and other CBM, SR and CB courses were manufactured.

Think about it.  The Lido was:
-- shoehorned into a piece of property that by all accounts was inhospitable to golf.

Reclamation of unuseable or inhospitable property was common.  NGLA's land was swamp and inhospitable in areas.
Yale's was likewise all rock and inhospitable as well.  

built with complete disregard for he lay of the land, in a location chosen not for its proximity to people rather than its golfing potential.

there was no disregard for lay of the land.  The course was built on a good deal land that was underwater and unuseable for anything else

built at an outrageous financial cost, enough to build 10s or maybe 100s of courses on better land, which was still readily available.

Yale was also built at great cost.  Lido was part of a grander project.  Since when is the cost to build a great course a negative if the cost is easily affordable by the backers ?

Some of the backers were Roger Winthrop President of Piping Rock, Paul Kravath, Thomas Cuyler, Cornelius Vanderbilt,
Robert Goelet, Charles Sabin, Henry Bull, Forbes Morgan,
James Stillman, Harry Payne Whitney, and Otto Kahn, some of the wealthiest men in America.
 
built with disregard for the economic and social realities of the time.

Just the opposite is true.
In 1914-1918 the intent was to attract a wealthy INTERNATIONAL membership.  The club was to have a grand hotel with hundreds of rooms, a world class golf course, tennis, equestrian, fishing, and shooting facilities, all located on the beach, the Atlantic Ocean, with swimming, etc., etc..  It would only be a short distance from Manhattan and would be the supreme social club for sportsmen

NGLA was viewed as the supreme club in America, but it was remote and took an effort, and time to get there.
Lido would be much more convenient to Manhantan the financial epicenter of America
   
built on soil inhospitable to growing anything.

I disagree on this too.  SAND is one of the most desireable soil conditions on which to build a golf course and grow grass.

One could make the case that The Creek was built on worse land.  Low lying, subject to tidal surges, often flooded.

A good portion of NGLA's land was swamp too{/b]

And, Yale was mostly solid rock, hardly ideal for growing anything.

created only by the means of massive earth movement.

So was Yale and NGLA at the green ends

chosen in part for its proximity to a beach, as part of a resort.

Would this disqualify Friar's Head, Maidstone, Seminole, Pebble Beach, Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes  ?

Moreover, the course represents Man's ultimate arrogance: That given  enough money and the proper technology, man can impose his will on nature and not only duplicate it, but better it.

That's not arrogance, but a victory of man's dreams, of  imagination and determination.

I know that chronologically, great courses were built after the Lido, but symbolically, the Lido seems to represent values which would undermine the Golden Age, or at least repress it for a very long time.

Not true.
Look at NGLA, and Piping Rock, built before Lido and highly representative of "the Golden Age", Lido was a natural progression.

If you read George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf" I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

Do you agree or disagree?   Did "Golden Age Architecture" jump the shark with the Lido?

Disagree

Other than representing another example of great MacDonald/Raynor strategy, is there anything positive about the legacy of the Lido?

Read "The Evangelist of Golf" and the answer becomes self evident.

[As was explained to me not so long ago, "jumping the shark" is a term used to describe the event which symbolizes the beginning of an inevitable decline or demise--  Named for the dreaded Happy Days episode where Fonzie tried to jump the shark tank.]

Tommy Naccarato,

David,
I agree with a lot some of what Pat is saying, as well as Jim Kennedy was right--this was an effort that could probably be compared to Shadow Creek on the scale of money spent, but as far as construction, reclaiming sand from the waterway and pumping it on to the site, as well as creating all of the features neccessary for golf, Lido to me was a miracle for that time and age. (There are some fact that I do somewhat disagree with Pat.)

NGLA is a golf course that evolved around the nature of that site--just the perfect amount of earth was moved to create her. To call it manufactured would be true, I woud equate it to more of a World Class Massage.

".....Macdonald uncovered a 450 acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course.  The property had been looked upon as WHOLLY ILL SUITED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT-
A WORTHLESS MESS OF BRAMBLES, SWAMPY AREAS, AND MURKY BOGS.  IN FACT, SO LITTLE OF THE LAND COULD BE EXPLORED ON FOOT IT WAS NECESSARY TO USE PONIES"

You may want to reassess your understanding of the property that NGLA was built on.  It was hostile, and ill suited for a golf course, but CBM saw that with man's hand he could eliminate the swamps, bogs and brambles and create a great golf course on a gorgeous stretch of waterfront, which is not unlike Lido, and he moved plenty of dirt in building each manufactured green site.

Growing grass in sand was a tough thing and if it wasn't for Peter Lees, the Lido wouldn't have had it growing, stuck in the same situation as NGLA before it. That was the key to Lido--an agrononomist that knew how to grow grasses on this unfingbelievable golf site.

But that's what I think of it.

And to everyone, David has the book, and I know what he is getting at in regards to this point--there is validity to it. But from a design standpoint, I'll pit Lido against the overated Shadow Creek anyday.

Ocean front property has more then a slight advantage over a desert flood plain.  And, the intent behind building both courses was different.  One was to attract the international set of sportsmen, the other was meant to attract noone, but rather, a special perk to prefered customers of Steve Wynn's.

You really owe it to yourself to talk with Uncle George for a few three hours to really understand what existed there.

Long Live Lido! Here! Here!

Sadly, Lido could never be built today

redanman,

And Lido could not be built in the USA USA USA, but somewhere in the world, yes.

It would have to be on the Atlantic, NO ?

It is interesting to note that we did not destroy the planet with the first go-round of swamp-filling and sand-pumping back in those Golden Days.

This may be the most profound statement you've made to date, and in complete harmony with the golf course thread,
"Are environmental issues a joke ?

I often wonder just how good Lido was. If it was really so spectacular why then was it so spectacularly neglected?

If it was such a superior sportsmen's club/oasis, why did the investors sell out? Arguably if it was as good as reported, wouldn't they have stayed in (at any cost?).

I understand the war had a large impact, but certainly that wouldn't have prevented the well heeled from simply returning later to enjoy the course once again. Other clubs faced similar wartime predicaments (e.g., Seminole) but they persevered. Why didn't Lido? Something is amiss. If it was such a spectacular place it presumably would be worth the effort and money to protect it.

Sean, I think yours is the same of David's original question--was it really that good?

Trying to offer proof would be hard other then looking at the artificats (remnants, pictures and words) of the course from when it opened. Why it didn't work was simply because the land had too much value at the worst imaginable times as far as golf was concerned. The timing just sucked.

Q:What is the one thing that a New York resident can look at today and say--this place must have been special?
A: The hotel.

Even today, the hotel screams of a greatness that once existed--why would it even still be standing if it didn't? Why, there is even still beach there where parts or entire holes (the 7th, 8th, 9th, & 18th) once existed, but it more then likely has just melted away.

But I think you do bring a great point, and its one that says, much more defined research needs to be handled on the politics of why Lido was left for dead--I'll almost guarantee it Robert Moses name will come into somewhere.

SPDB,

You can't compare what happened at Seminole and other clubs to what happened to Lido.

Seminole doesn't serve dinner, thus keeping costs down.
Lido had enormous non-golf related overhead, which was part of its undoing

What you're missing is that it wasn't the War in a global sense that set back the use of the golf course, but that the NAVY commandeered the golf course as a base from 1942 to 1949.
The Navy still retains some of the land that the original oceanside holes were on.

The golf course that emerged and re-opened in 1949 was substantially altered from the original.  It wasn't the same golf course, which you might not have been aware of.
The original had been mostly destroyed by 1949.

Forgive the length of this post...I'll post a Cliff notes version for BillV.

David
It is an interesting question, but I suppose it depends upon what you believe the golden age designers stood for.

IMO it is a mistake to associate a political or social agenda with the designs or designers of that period. The Arts and Crafts Movement (which had an influence upon the direction of golf design) was part artistic movement part social movement, unfortunately the social movement (which promoted socialism) was its down fall. From its beginning many of the artists had difficulty with the political aspects of the movement, and many others practioners rejected its political overtones over time.... thankfully.

We are all richer with extravagant works like Greene and Greene's Gamble House, FL Wright's Fallingwater, Voysey's Broadleys, Lutyen's Deanery Garden, Mackintosh's Hill House, etc. Like wise we were richer for Lido (Darwin thought it superior to NGLA), unfortunately it did not survive.

No doubt Lido was a tight property, but so were Wannamoisett, Inverness, Shoreacres, Scioto, Bayside, Winged Foot and countless others designed by Ross, MacKenzie, Tillie, Emmet, etc..

Inhospitable? Perhaps it was a sandy swampy property by the sea....but after all the game was born by the sea, that is where the architectural prototypes were found. No doubt it was a mammoth task preparing the site for golf and in essence restoring the natural dunescape. But on the other hand I would prefer a seaside course built on artificial dunes to a seaside course built upon a mud flat...that doesn't sound too appealing. I certainly would not put Macdonald in the minimalist camp...IMO he would definitely ignore the lay of the land if the land was laying there like a mud flat. In fact I don't know too many so called golden agers who wouldn't have ignored the land in this case....architects like Raynor, Alison, Thompson, Thomas, Langford, Strong, MacKenzie, Ross etc. would have done something similar (or nothing at all).

The strength of these lay of the landers was not their complete refusal to move land, but their ability to recognize and utilize natural features, and to create man-made features that enhanced the natural. I agree it is unwise to ignore Nature (arrogant if you like)...but I've never considered Macdonald or Lido as examples of this problem. It seems to me he embraced Nature, and in this case re-establishing a natural environment (with the help of money and technology...IMO there is nothing inherently wrong/evil with money or technology).

I disagree with Pat, equating the NGLA to Lido from a construction view point. Macdonald  himself wrote (as did Travis) about the construction of the NGLA (before, during and after) and unless you believe Macdonald is a liar, that golf course was definitely a lay of the land design, CB took great pains to utilize the natural feature of the site.

There were a number of courses built on difficult sites, all quite expensive--Pine Valley, Timber Point, Banff, Jasper, Yale, Oyster Harbors, Ponte Vedra, Indian Creek, Tokyo off the top of my head. Regarding the social and economic realities of the time, my read it was a very prosperous time, and I don't believe the architects of that era were all that focused on social issues. Robert Hunter, a socialist prior to getting into golf design, died an intelligent conservative afterward. Their focus IMO was upon their craft, both artistically and strategically.

Some of the positives of Lido: Growing grass upon sand was a problem--Pine Valley, NGLA and Lido were grass growing experiments that helped down the road and the suction dredge method developed at Lido was utilized at Timber Point, Sea Island, Colony and I believe Sharp Park (to name a few).

It still comes down to the founders and the money men losing interest and the course itself just starting to
drift and deteriorate after the war. I think some of it may have been that Peter Lees, who was to stay on as super, left to go on to other jobs - so with him gone I’m certain the conditioning of the course deteriorated. He went on to super’s jobs at a couple Raynor courses that I know of and I think he built a couple courses also.

Might it also be a factor, like the Bandon Dunes courses, the wind kept messing with the course. The Ocean hole was usually a mess and finally the green got undermined by the sea and was moved.

As far as it being a great course .....  If anyone of you have ever had the pleasure of reading through the old Golf Illustrated and American Golfer magazines you would have seen lists, like today ..... “which in your opinion are the great courses of today: the usual question  ...   Lido was always there with the best of them even though these lists were usually someone’s opinion rather than a consensus of writers (or
“raters”).

For its day it was a very long course - 6693 in 1923.

I have one of the Ralph Kennedy scorecards (8/6/1923) - and Ralph was a pretty good golfer, usually shooting in the low 80's. He shot 99 and 96 and had a lot of trouble on the Long hole #17(an 8 and a 7) and was 6 over on the Biarritz for two rounds. He made just 3 pars for the day: 2 on the Eden hole #3 and one on the short Knoll hole ..... guess the wind was blowing.

And Tommy is right  ( ..... hah ......) big case of mismanagement, not in the beginning but as time went on. Also remember this was an "investment project" for these founders .... guess they were not getting the return given the overheard (for those who do not know, the hotel - the Lido Club - was built about 10 years after the course because of the war etc)

Pat -I am familiar with the history of Lido.

Hundreds of private structures, and countless acreage of private land was comandeered during the war. That didn't prevent subsequent use following the war. I just wonder why there was no interest.

But as George points out, it appears to be a dollars and cents issue. That's only partially helpful, because a large number of the investors were fabulously wealthy people. I don't mean to imply that that automatically means they would waste money on an investment, but if the course was so spectacular, wouldn't there have been more interest to continue with the course after the war?

Was Lido private or public (in the sense that it was open to the guests)?

My own pet theory is that if it were public, perhaps the swells from the North Shore were simply tired of mixing with the hoi polloi, and found that they were much more comfortable in the private confines off of Piping Rock and Lattingtown Roads. In which case, the course may have been spectacular, but the patrons were the problem.

I'm from New York and Long Island as were my mother and my grandparents and those before them so I have a pretty clear impression of what was going on back then.

The Lido golf course definitely did not fail because there was something wrong with its architecture or the golf course was not as good as was reported at that time. I have no doubt when Lido was built it was instantly in the top 2-5 golf courses in America as was reported back then and rightly so.

The sole reasons the Lido did not survive are for those very reasons reported above--the timing of the entire Lido project was very poor! The Lido happened to be in an area that was not populated by those principals who built the course as was Piping Rock or even Shinnecock and NGLA.

The principals who built the entire Lido project (hotel and course) were practically the same ones from Piping Rock and many of them later were the princpals of The Creek Club. In that world back then almost every one of those type of people (those principals) lived in NYC in the winter and in the summer they populated the North Shore of LI and also the Hamptons. None of them lived in the vicinity of what became know as Lido Beach--where the Lido GC was.

The Lido was and always would've been a distant destination for them (and their friends) compared to those other clubs and courses mentioned which were in the very midst of where they lived during particular seasons. This was definitely not the case with The Lido!

One could probably legitimately ask what Roger Winthrop and his fellow principals thought the eventual purpose of Lido would be but we do know the "club" arm of the Lido basically never got off the ground.

Those same principals created the Lido Corporation initially which built the hotel and the entire 200 acre tract that included the 115 acre golf course. The "club" entity of the Lido planned to lease the golf course from the Lido Corporation (again, the principals of the Lido Corporation and the expected "club" of the Lido golf course were the very same people--Winthrop, Otto Kahn, Paul Cravath, De Witt Cuyler, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Robert Goelet, J.A. Stillman et al). I can tell you right now that group WAS all part of the heaviest hitters in New York at that time!

But again, The Lido ran into really poor timing for the reasons mentioned above. Just because almost all their other clubs survived the Wars and the depression does not indicate that the golf architecture of their other clubs was better than the Lido--nothing of the kind.

If you want to know the absolute historical truth of the Lido insofar as those original principals were concerned and why they walked away from it and why ultimately The Lido did not survive was The Lido was just not in the right place for them and the times threw them a real curve ball.

So they sold it out to a real estate company early on who never took care of the course and who obviously didn't have the same interest and understanding of the course as they did. But the golf course was built and it was truly magnificent in every way (it's pretty hard to deny the truth of what those who saw it back then said about it) but the club basically never happened.

Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of the golf architecture.

And in my opinion, David Moriarty's entire premise here that the expense and earth moving of The Lido in some way "jumped the shark" and sold out the values of the American "Golden Age of golf architecture" has no truth to it whatsoever.

In my opinion, the premise of this entire thread is the same thing as attempting to put a square peg in a round hole.

The Lido's golf course failed because the timing of the project was poor combined with what the entire project was supposed to be--a great golf course coupled with a hotel--and both of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

None of that had a thing to do with the quality of the Lido as a golf course or the quality of The Lido's architecture.

SPDB,

That's a good question.

I believe that selling off the Ocean front property was an attempt by the new owners to stop the financial bleeding, but perhaps TEPaul and George Bahto can supply a more thorough answer