"Goerge goes on to say the Lido project cost $1.43 million with construction alone $800,000."

Tim:

The $1.43 mil was apparently the cost to the original investors (The Lido Corporation) to develop the entire 200 acre site including building the hotel. The cost of the land  including the construction of the golf course was $750,000-$800,000 according to C.B. Macdonald. He said this in his book;

"The total expenditure of the Lido Corporation was about $1,430,000, of which $750,000 to $800,000, including the cost of the land, was attributable to the golf course. The lease between the corporation and the club, which was prepared but never signed, fixed the rent on the basis of the golf course expenditure, including the cost of the land, being $750,000, and gave the club an option on the course at this figure."

Obviously, that option by the original investors to lease the club from the corporation never happened. The original investors sold the whole development to another real estate development company about which Macdonald said;

"But after the great flourish of trumpets by the original organizers as to the future of this course, to find they had all left it and permitted it to fall into the hands of a real estate development company---people who knew little about golf and cared less, but who simply held the club together to further real-estate ventures---was a bitter disappointment to me."

David
It is interesting that they both failed--as did Sharp Park.  Sea Island, Colony and Timber Point are also no more (at least no more as built). But Mid Surrey and Lido failed for different reasons.

Although Mid Surrey initially generated considerable excitement and positive publicity, just as quickly it became the target of critics. Many thought the huge man-made mounds were out of place inland and overly artificial. Lido on the other hand was never criticized for being artificial and enjoyed a lofty position next to NGLA and Pine Valley for many years. It appears the Depression and War was its undoing (I think the fine course at Montauk suffered a similar fate)—it was never considered an artistic failure.

Sharp Park was washed away by storm early on (MacKenzie did mention the prize hole at SP in the S of St.A), Sea Island was plowed up by Fazio a couple years ago and Colony was a victim of the Depression. Timber Point was developed by similar blue bloods from the north shore and  lasted longer than Lido, but it was private.

I agree they were constrained by Nature, and generally (IMO) they all (at least the good ones) had great respect for Nature and the advantages Nature could give to interesting design.  But in my view there is a difference between appreciating and working with interesting natural features (and not blowing up a hillside or moving mountains or flattening undulating ground) and creating dunescape on a featureless mudflat by the sea.  I think these architects created more interest on uninteresting land than is generally known.  

hah - Tommy N, David and I had a long 3-way conversation last nite-like an hour - obviously, it was 2 against 1         .......  it was fun

Shivas said:

"Guys, no matter what anybody here says, this is all about cost."

That was my point entirely if one really wants the truth of the demise of The Lido golf course. And I think, I, and others, provided ample historical evidence that excessive cost as well as poor timing were the sole factors responsible for the eventual demise of The Lido golf course.

However, David Moriarty wants to continue to pursue the premise that perhaps it was really more than cost and poor timing that was responsible for the demise of The Lido or at the very least perhaps there was something symbolically foreboding about what Macdonald/Raynor did there in some sort of contravention of Nature or some immutable aspect of Nature which may be necessary or even essential for man to respect to be able to build great golf architecture and a great golf course.

I respect DavidM for admitting the economic and timing factors were apparently primary in the demise of the Lido but still wanting to continue to purse the premise that the Lido as an entirely man-created golf course was in some way STILL symbolically wrong, reverse in some way, foreboding or a failing in some accepted or inherently valid architectural principle, etc! This all was what he must have meant in an architectural context only by "jumping the shark."

Personally, I think Tom MacWood went a long way in post #49 in almost proving that David's premise (sans economic considerations) may not be true or at least certainly may not be provable.

Let a quotation from Max Behr, certainly an architect who had a thing or two to say about this entire subject of "Man" the architect and how he treated Nature in his designs be an indication of the answer to DavidM's premise.

      "Golf architecture is not an art of representation; it is, essentially, an art of interpretation. And an interpretative art allows freedom to fancy only through obedience to the law which dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves. The medium of the artist is paint, and he becomes its master; but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master.
         Therefore, in the prosecution of his designs, if the architect correctly uses the forces of nature to express them and thus succeeds in hiding his hand, then, only, has he created the illusion that can still all criticism."
Max Behr, 1927

Notice that Behr does not actually talk about the look of Nature or even some immutability of Nature as something that a golf architect must respect as he finds it. Behr talks about Nature as a medium! Behr admits that the paint artist is the master of his medium--which is paint. Behr maintains that the medium of the golf architect is the Earth (Nature) over which the architect is NOT master as the artist IS master of his medium--paint!

And although Behr does more than imply that no matter what the golf architect creates it should definitely have the LOOK of Nature what Behr actually says is the golf architect must respect the FORCES of NATURE and not just what he may have found as Nature on some preconstruction site (from Nature) in a static sense at some point in time.

There's no question that what Macdonald found at Lido, preconstruction, was not in any way useful for golf even in a natural sense. Frankly, Macdonald/Raynor had to actually create through dredging and filling enough terra firma to build the golf course. There is nothing at all contrary to the use and respect of Nature in the creation of the Lido. Macdonald found no "useful for golf" nature at preconstruction Lido to abuse, misuse or disrepect. Macdonald had even less than a BLANK canvas for golf at Lido in a natural sense, he actually had to create his BLANK canvas FIRST. And there is nothing whatsover in that that's antithethical to respecting nature in the creation of his golf course.

Once again, Behr doesn't JUST talk about the medium of the earth (Nature) over which the golf architect should NOT PLAY MASTER he talks about the FORCES of Nature over which the architect should not play master!

There's no question whatsover that Macdonald/Raynor created a magnificent and naturally appearing golf course out of an almost less than zero natural site for golf! The Lido was recognized after creation as one of the great courses in America. The only way Macdonald/Raynor could have been accused then or now of doing something there antithetical to Nature would've been to do something antithetical to the FORCES of Nature.

A good example of that would've been if the ocean had abolished through natural Forces something like his famous Biarritz close by the beach or perhaps his famous "Channel" hole due to misconceived hydrodology on the part of the architects.

If those things had happened then some of us today might have good reason to accuse Macdonald/Raynor of doing something in contravention of Nature or her forces or something symbolically wrong somehow in some architectural principle of golf course permanency. But that didn't happen, as far as we know. All that we know is those holes were finally wiped away by the forces of real estate development under the management of people who had no real understanding of or interest in the magnificent Lido golf course.

So, to me, DavidM's premise of "jumping the shark" in some context of repressing or affecting the Golden Age of golf architecture, most of which was in the future, is not correct, or at least is not well proved here.

Nevertheless, it's been a wonderful discussion and I'm glad David Moriarty started it.
     

Pat: Lido was a private club - got up to about 1,600 international members if memory serve me right.

I do think the Yale course project was the most expensive course given the time it was built when comparing it to the time each of the others were built.

FYI: the Raynor project at Lookout Mtn was nearly as expensive as the Yale project. They ran short on funds there. It would be interesting to have seen what the ORIGINAL greens at Lookout were like - would thewy have been as dramatic as Yale .....  ??

I hope this isn't too far off topic; perhaps it might give some perspective of the engineering capabilities of the time. Those photos reminded me of a similar dredge/fill project in my birthplace, Galveston, TX.  

After a notable hurricane in 1900, using dredge piped in from the bay side of the island, the entire east end of Galveston was built up around six to eight feet.  No idea how many cubic yards, but it was a massive project.  They jacked up and filled under a cathedral!

It's interesting to see the tops of what were once first floor windows of houses at ground level today.  The smell for some time after must have been unbelievable!

(Sorry to sound like Cliff Claven! )

"Pat: Lido was a private club - got up to about 1,600 international members if memory serve me right."

There is something seriously amiss here! An international memberhip of 1500 or 1600? Who cares about that as far as the architectural care and preservation of The Lido golf course was concerned? Who were those international members? Were they no more than hotel guests??

Did not Macdonald himself, in his own book, say that the original investors in the Lido Corporation (which included the golf course and obviously included their wooing of  Macdonald/Raynor to produce a dream course) never even excercise their option to lease the course and to form a club?  Did Macdonald not say?---

"...and the course did not reach playable conditions until just about the time we went into the war, 1917, and it is true that the outbreak of the war and our entering it interfered substantially with the interest which would have been taken at another time by the founders of the club. Moreover, a club-house was never provided for until after the situation had passed out of the hands of those originally interested. But after the great flourish of trumpets by the original organizers as to the future of this course, to find they had all left it and permitted it to fall into the hands of a real estate development company---people who knew little about golf and cared less, but who simply held the club together to further real-estate ventures---was a bitter disappointment to me."

There’s nothing worse than revisionist history. Did Macdonald himself not make it clear that the Lido golf course never even became a club under the control of the original investors which led Macdonald to report early on?-----

“Visiting the Lido course recently for the first time in two or three years, I was quite surprised and disappointed to find it had been permitted to run down.”

All this had to have been written before 1927 when he published his book.

The question is when did the original investors sell the entire corporation, including the golf course, to a real estate investment company that was only interested according to Macdonald---“in real estate ventures”?

Did the original investors ever form a golf club at the Lido? It certainly doesn’t sound so from what Macdonald himself has said?! Frankly, I’ve never known any great golf course, even a great one, that could survive and prosper without a membership that cared about it! And who are we 80 years later to disagree with Macdonald about what the Lido was and what it became early on? After all he designed the golf course, the architecture was his dream---he more than anyone should know!

I think what David is saying is that Mac/Raynor and the Lido project were the enablers of the Fazio/Shadow Creek style of golf construction when removing and moving all that material at Lido Beach.

George.  Yes, that is what I am saying, and maybe a little bit more.  The Lido is a distinctly modern course-- not in the substance of the final product (strategy, feature placement, etc.), but rather in the philosophy of the architect.

I don’t see what’s wrong building the course in a “reversed” process - draw the topo, then fill the
land(morass) to the drawing.

Whether anything is "wrong,"  I assume by your choice of language that you agree that the "reversed" process did represent a 180 degree turn in approach.

A few suggestions on why this philosophy might not be all that positive for golf course architecture.

-- Duplicating nature is an extraordinarily difficult task.  However successful MacDonald, I wonder if it is beyond the capabilities of almost all of the rest.  
--  This type of architecture threatens to diminish the role of quirk.  The "rub of the green" factor may be diluted.  Specific quality may lose its uniqueness.
--   It may be very diffucult to keep the site from returning to its natural state.  
--   It is really expensive.

I just finished reading "Scotland's Gift" by Mac.
What was interesting to me was his 100 point score on the potential for a site.  What were the top criteria?
   -22 points goes to soil condition
   -20 points to undulations and topography

I favor sandy soil.
Not sure about what that means w/ the work on Lido Tommy N. is describing.

Having lived in NYC for a year, I love the idea of Lido.
I don't think it was folly.

Tom

DMoriarty,

Much of the quirk at NGLA was constructed, built by man, not found naturally.

Virtually every greensite is totally manufactured,
brilliantly, I might add.

Pat
A few posts back you quoted a sentence for Scotland Gift about the property being loaded with bogs and swamps, hoping to help support your comparison between NGLA and Lido. So as not to give everyone the wrong idea and to place the quote in proper context, I included what came before and after it. I have no doubt the greens were built up, most greens during the golden age were built up. Why are you transfixed upon the artificiality of NGLA?

"However, there happedned to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay and lying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Everyone thought it more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huchelberry, blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way one could get over the ground was by ponies. So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the countours of the ground. Finally we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It adjoined the Shinnecock Hills GC. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose. Again we studied the countours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.

We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had little over a quarter of mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile, The peoperty was more or less remote, three miles from Southammpton, where thoroughfares and railroads could never other us--a much-desired situation.

When playing golf you want to be alone with Nature.

We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. Immediately we commenced development. In many places the land was impoverished. These had to be dressed. Roughly speaking, i think we have probably put some 10,000 loads of good soil, including manure, on th eproperty. We did not have enough money to to consider building a club-house at once, our intention was to have the first hoe close to the Shinnecock Inn, which had ben recently built by the Realty Company. The old saying, "I'll blow the wind that profits nobody," is quite apropos here, for the Inn burned doen in 1909, which drove us to build a clubhouse....I first placed the golf holes which were almost unanimously considered the finest of the character in Great Britian. We found a setting for the Alps hole which the Whighams, fine golfers, who were brought up in Prestwich, considered to be superior to the original type. Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and find a perfect Redan which was absolutley natural. Ben Sayers, well-known profesional at North Berwich, told me he thought it superior to the original."

DavidM said;

“Tom, this is precisely my point!  Behr believed that he was not the master of nature, but had to work with it.  
  But with the Lido, MacDonald attempted to become the master of nature in the way a painter is master over his paints.  The allusion to MacDonald as a Power beyond nature is impossible to miss when MacDonald admits that the project made him feel like a "creator."

David:

I’m glad that’s precisely your point and I’ll try to stick precisely to it. Sorry you think I wasn’t reading your posts carefully as if they were boring---nothing of the kind. As for continuing to connect what you’re trying to get at here to the economics of the Lido---I tried to get away from that—just reread my post #68!

As to the point of whatever “symbolism” you’re trying to explore on this thread (perhaps as it relates to the Golden Age of golf architecture or something larger) and a connection to the essays and philosophies of Max Behr on golf architecture, I’m very glad you’re willing to do that---and again, as you said above, “this is precisely my point.”

What were Behr’s essays and did they have a “philosophy” on golf architecture, did they have an ultimate “point”? I, like Geoff Shackelford, believe they did. We believe Behr’s essays should not be looked at as merely independent and unconnected observations on golf architecture. We believe that a number of his essays had an interconnected “point” to them that became his ultimate conclusion on golf architecture. THOSE essays were essentially a priori reasoning to reach an ultimate conclusion that might be termed “Permanent Architecture”. And ultimately “Permanent Architecture” is the very term that Behr uses as the “point he concludes his essays with!

“As for the rest of your post, you might want to be careful with just how broadly you interpret your beloved Behr.”

I don’t think so David---and I might advise you to try to think a bit more broadly than you may be on this subject of Behr’s on golf architecture. Try to understand better the interconnected theme that runs through his essays, why he uses an on-going process of a priori reasoning throughout his essays on golf architecture. Try not to just get stuck on something like “minimalism”, and your impression of what-all that might mean as a total prerequisite to what Behr was ultimately driving at. Regarding “minimalism” in architecture, many consider that minimal earth moving for the purpose of preserving those natural features of the earth that may be useful for golf instead of wiping them away or simply not using them for golf IS NECESSARY. Behr very much believed that and so do I. But what if an architect came upon some site that had nothing naturally useful for golf (as did Macdonald at Lido)? Does that mean that a good architect cannot produce a golf course that is both naturally appearing as well as something that may be permanent?  I don’t believe it does mean that and I don’t believe Macdonald or even Max Behr felt that!  

Pat
You chose to take this excerpt from the book to prove your Lido comparison:

".....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 went on to say:
 “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.

You later said:
“Only after the swamps were drained and/or filled, the bogs drained and/or filled, did the land become developable, which is exactly what happened at Lido”.

Is it possible your quote was taken slightly out of context…Macdonald didn’t say the property was ill suited for a golf course, he said the property was looked upon as ill suited, understandably since  it was nearly impossible to explore. If you go on to read the rest of Macdonald’s comments, it appears that the 205 acres they selected from the 450 was well suited for their purposes.

I really don’t see your comparison of Lido and the NGLA as a good one.

I’m still trying to find the part where Macdonald said he eliminated the swamps and bogs…could you direct me to that quote? And where he said he moved plenty of dirt to build each manufactured green?

Most greens during this famous era were built up to some extent…do you characterize all these courses as artificial or manufactured as you do the NGLA?

I believe I have answered your questions before (probably a dozen or more times when you’ve been forced to resort to your old disqualification tactics), but I’ll answer them again. No I’ve not played the course, but I have been there and observed the course as it sits today.

I don’t believe either one of us was there when the course was laid out or constructed….correct?