[John Kavanaugh]

You have to have a first to start a trend. I am proud of the fact that I stood up in opposition to the first green side fan I ever saw. I lost that battle and now we all suffer for it. In 20 years when architects are replaced by technicians who oversee installations of replica courses you can remember this project.

What bothers me most is that this site, a place where architects should be promoted and celebrated, is leading the charge against creativity and innovation. Bothers me but doesn't surprise me because that has always been the motivation behind most critics. This is going to make everyone's life easier because if you don't like Lido you must simply be stupid.

I'd be one hell of a lot happier if someone from Kingsley, Rustic or Ballyneal would give up their wonderful original creations for a replica. Because who knows what course we will lose for this.

[Tim_Weiman]

John K:

To be fair, I think your comments are a bit over the top. I strongly doubt people here are opposed to creativity and an emphasis on original designs.

If at the end of the day, many here support a replica Lido project, most likely the support will be on an exception basis, not with any thought or hope it will start a trend toward replica courses.

If you have played the Tour 18 here in Houston, then you may well agree it serves a purpose. Really, it is awful. It is a lesson on why replicas should usually be avoided.

[Jason Way]

By God, if they are going to call it Lido I sure hope they don't produce some watered down course meant to be "retail golfer" friendly because that isn't the original.

I think I understand (and agree with) the spirit of this comment, Don, but I must ask, do you find the 2 courses at Streamsong to be "watered down"?  Are the courses at Bandon "watered down" by your standards?  Cabot Links and Cliffs?  Barnbougle?  The owners of all these facilities profess a dedication to the enjoyment of the retail golfer.  I don't think that they have produced anything watered down while upholding that principle thus far.  

I wouldn't expect any course built as "a replica of" or "inspired by" the Lido to suddenly be built to a different standard.  

On another note, wank job...that is priceless JT.

 

[DMoriarty]

If someone had what they thought was a good plan, and hired an architect to adapt the plan to a certain piece of ground, then I'd be fine with that. If they do that, the first thing to change will be the plan to better fit the ground, and then while the course is getting built, it will be edited in the field.

I think this argument would carry more weight if it wasn't the Lido we are talking about.  To my mind, the idea behind the Lido was that the ground was created to fit the plan, not the other way around.  Supposedly there was not any "ground" to begin with.  The ground was created solely with the golf course in mind.   When I think of a Lido copy, this is what I assume they will try --Build a course to predetermined specifications with complete disregard for what might fit on the ground as it pre-exists.  

3D printers are all the rage right now in schools and in experimental manufacturing.   I think of the early Lido project as an attempt at 3D print of a golf course design, where the entire object is built according to the plan with a malleable material (dredged sand.)   I assume the new project would be a more sophisticated effort to do the same.  

That is why I think Patrick's question above really gets to the heart of the matter:  If Lido itself had never been built, but the 3d Model and detailed plans from CBM existed, would it make sense to try to create it?  

Personally I balk at the idea of disconnecting the design from the nature of the land itself, but admit that it was an interesting experiment then, and I think it may be an interesting experiment now.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

You can view a much larger version of this image at:

https://blog.forelinksters.com/2012/12/09/streamsong-golf-resort/

Just click on the photo a couple of times.


Where is there any semblance of great ground for golf in this photo?

  


And at least one mag has this as the site for SS Black:

[Don Mahaffey]

Jim,
I walked the ground at SS before any work started, and I thought it very good ground for golf.
All sorts of land forms were left over from the mining operation.

david makes a good point and I'm starting to think that if they do in fact try and "3D print" the golf course, I hope they do build it just as they did originally. I doubt they will as I assume some concessions will be made for modern equipment and modern agronomy, but how cool would it be to see the real thing, green surfaces, severity around the greens.

My next question then is if they were to do that, would it be loved, or does it need to be modernized for the modern golfer?

Some of the pictures I've seen look pretty darn severe.
they build this, and I'm in:

[Jim Nugent]

Don, that is not the original version of that hole.  It started out as a Biarritz, that ran right along the beach, and was tougher than nails. 

So if they do recreate the original course, the hole you see in that picture will not be there. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
I wasn't there and I'll take your word for that. I've been looking at the site using the "Bird's Eye" at Bing Maps. They still show the course under construction , but when you zoom in you can view the site pre-construction.




A look at the countryside from 1994 to 2015 can also be had at Google Earth. Interesting to view the changes to the site that are shown within that span of time.

There's no sacred trust between the natural landscape and the architect being broken in that area.    

[DMoriarty]

. . . I'm starting to think that if they do in fact try and "3D print" the golf course, I hope they do build it just as they did originally. I doubt they will as I assume some concessions will be made for modern equipment and modern agronomy, but how cool would it be to see the real thing, green surfaces, severity around the greens.

My next question then is if they were to do that, would it be loved, or does it need to be modernized for the modern golfer?

Some of the pictures I've seen look pretty darn severe.

I think if they did built to the original plan (as shown on the 3D map) it would present some very severe challenges, yet still have plenty of width for playability.  The thing that strikes me is that it seems like a course with very little letup, but it would be fun to see if that was indeed the case.

As for concessions to the modern golfer, I'd be much more interested in the project if they didn't make any, but this seems like the type of project that will inevitably get compromised.  I hope not though.

Sven's questions about the length are interesting.  From the back tees, the original was long enough to challenge the best golfers in the world.  To challenge today's best golfers in a similar fashion , the new version would have to be much, much longer.   The problem, though, is that proportions between the best golfers and the average golfers have changed dramatically since the original was built, and average golfers would not fit on a "scale model" amped up to challenge the best golfers.   

A better approach might be to ignore the best golfers in the world and built it closer to the original scale, with perhaps some small adjustment to reflect the change in technology for the average player, but not the top golfer.   

[DMoriarty]

This may have been already answered, but does anyone know if the plasticine model still exists?  The amount of contour in the photo of the model looks impressive, and I wonder how the actual model stacks up. 

For example here is a closeup of the Biarritz hole that I blew up in a discussion of the Biarritz concept many years ago.  (The Lido is in the middle.  Ignore the others.)  It looks like there was a heck of movement on the first plateau.

[Tim Martin]

A better approach might be to ignore the best golfers in the world and built it closer to the original scale, with perhaps some small adjustment to reflect the change in technology for the average player, but not the top golfer.   

Why not build for the average player? The player that represents the masses.

[DMoriarty]

Why not build for the average player? The player that represents the masses.

I think we are saying the same thing.

[Tim Martin]

Why not build for the average player? The player that represents the masses.

I think we are saying the same thing.

David-Sorry if I was unclear. I agree with you completely.

[Sean_A]

I am not for or against the idea.  However, I don't really believe the Lido can be reproduced...even down to getting the name properly understood....or they wouldn't be calling this course Lido on the proposed site.  To me, the idea is a bit of a marketing fraud.  Furthermore, I am not convinced the marketing fraud will produce more business or a better course than an original design from an internationally well respected archie.  That isn't to say the "Lido" can't or won't be great, but I am struggling to understand why an owner would want to pigeon hole his archie...seems like an unnecessary risk...and one that could potentially thwart a great orginal design being constructed. 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

I am struggling to understand why an owner would want to pigeon hole his archie...seems like an unnecessary risk...and one that could potentially thwart a great orginal design being constructed. 

Ciao

Sean, doesn't the same argument apply to Old Mac?

Here are a few ideas on why Lido might appeal to certain owners:

Lido was by many counts one of the top few courses in the country.  Some said the best, and that included NGLA, Merion and Pine Valley.  Intriguing possibility to build a new course that, right out of the box, might measure up to today's top-ranked world-class courses.

CBM designed Lido.  A guy like, say, Mike Keiser, admires CBM.  So much so, he had a tribute course built around CBM's ideas.  That course is one of the top-ranked in the nation.  As I understand it, it's extremely popular.  Suggests Lido could be very popular as well. 

The belief that they CAN reproduce a nearly exact Lido replica.  Maybe even improve on it.   That's why it's a shame Tom Doak doesn't seem interested in the job.   

Lots of marketing potential for a Lido replica.  Reprint some of the rave reviews, by golf's leading lights, that called this course the best in the country, better than Pine Valley, Merion and NGLA.  Built by the father of American golf courses and architecture, who laid out many of the nation's best courses, and whose ideas and designs shaped the future of American golf.  Tough as nails for the pro's, but a joy for bogey as well.  You probably will never play Augusta National, but you can play a course that might well be its rival or superior.   

Keiser has wanted to build Lido for years.  Sounds to me like this might be almost irresistible for him.  And does anyone have a keener sense than him about building great courses and marketing them?

I like the idea for several reasons.  Not least of which is it will give the public a chance to play the type of course that has mostly been limited to a small number of country club members.

[Dave Doxey]

Allow me to offer a defense of Tour-18 in Houston.

For the majority of golfers, who will never have the opportunity to play Augusta, playing a replica of Amen corner, however inaccurate, is a lot of fun.

Having played only a couple of the real holes that were replicated at Tour-18, I could clearly see the inaccuracies and difference due to location and routing.  For the other holes, which I will likely never get to play for real, it was simply fun to play and imagine.  What is the down side?

Fun – isn’t that what the game is all about?

[John Kavanaugh]

Myrtle Beach and more specifically the Channel Hole at King's North is fun.  $60 is fun, $300 a round needs to be more.

[Tom_Doak]

Allow me to offer a defense of Tour-18 in Houston.

For the majority of golfers, who will never have the opportunity to play Augusta, playing a replica of Amen corner, however inaccurate, is a lot of fun.

Having played only a couple of the real holes that were replicated at Tour-18, I could clearly see the inaccuracies and difference due to location and routing.  For the other holes, which I will likely never get to play for real, it was simply fun to play and imagine.  What is the down side?

Fun – isn’t that what the game is all about?

There are two separate discussions getting crossed here.

At the consumer level, your argument above may be entirely correct.  Heck, most of the consumers would have no earthly idea whether a copy of the Lido is anything like the original course; they'll be happy to take the developer's word for it, since they don't really care anyway.

At the architect level, it's much different, unless you think that all architects are just business people.

But, this is no different than many other things in modern life -- what makes perfect sense at the level of business is not the best thing for the sake of the art.  It just depends which side you're on.

[Dave Doxey]

Tom,

I agree with your observation completely.  I was only commenting on the Tour-18 type course that copies holes generally accepted as special from famous courses.  I think that that type of course has a place and an attraction to the general golfing consumer. They’ve seen it on TV. It has appeal over just playing another average course.  Overdoing the concept (too many copy courses) would quickly kill the appeal.

As for an exact copy of Lido, I agree that the attraction of it “being” the Lido would have little sway with me, and certainly none with the average golf consumer who has never heard of Lido or watched the “Cialis Lido Open” on TV.

Golf architects, like all innovators, stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before them. I’d be more interested in a course that started with Lido hole designs and had the architect build upon them in varying degrees.  Especially if that process were documented, perhaps on the scorecard.  That might even start to educate the masses.

(Disclaimer - my point of view on GCA falls in between the average golf slob who judges a course largely on the beer cart and the GCA snob connoisseur of course design.)

[DMoriarty]

At the architect level, it's much different, unless you think that all architects are just business people.

But, this is no different than many other things in modern life -- what makes perfect sense at the level of business is not the best thing for the sake of the art.  It just depends which side you're on.

There are a lot of interesting issues about a potential Lido project, and I have mixed feelings about aspects of the project myself, but I am not comfortable with this notion that the project necessarily creates a conflict between a potential architect's business interests and doing what is best for "the sake of the art."  Nor am I comfortable with the implication in some of the posts (not just Tom's) that building a course according to CBM's plan is somehow not a worthy artistic (and architectural) endeavor in and of itself.

It would be a different sort of project, but it strikes me as a one that would be exceptionally challenging and would fraught with the potential for heavy criticism.  But if an architect were to really pull it off (unlikely, I think) and build a world class course based on a non-site specific plan, it would be a tremendous artistic and technical accomplishment.

The late Canadian pianist Glenn Gould is perhaps best known for his 1955 recording of Bach's Goldberg Variations (and his 1981 re-recording of the same.)  Arguably, Gould redefined the way mainstream classical music lovers heard and understood Bach.  Was he not an artist because he was (for the most part) following Bach's score?  Or was he a brilliant artist because he was able to bring out the beauty in what was previously a largely overlooked, esoteric work?

I guess the counter would be that, unlike Bach, Gould was not a composer (at least not in that piece.)  But I think that becomes a semantical argument, to which I would respond, "so what."   Gould created something extremely worthwhile, for the sake of the art. 

[Jud_T]

Clearly Hendrix should have never covered Wild Thing.

[BCowan]

I wonder how Gail Zappa feels about the Lido....

[John Kavanaugh]

I wish we all had giant avatars.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A better approach might be to ignore the best golfers in the world and built it closer to the original scale, with perhaps some small adjustment to reflect the change in technology for the average player, but not the top golfer.   

Why not build for the average player? The player that represents the masses.

Tim,

Could you name ten (10) courses built for the average player ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

IMO, no good golf course gets built exactly to plan.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that the difference in design is unacceptable.

There is always field decisions because no matter how good anyone thinks they are at building a course in the office, it gets changed for the better in the field.

I'd tend to agree with that as well.

So far, we're in perfect harmony 

If someone had what they thought was a good plan, and hired an architect to adapt the plan to a certain piece of ground, then I'd be fine with that. If they do that, the first thing to change will be the plan to better fit the ground, and then while the course is getting built, it will be edited in the field.

The reason that I might take exception to that is the "ground" you're talking about at Streamsong, and the ease of altering that ground to meet the design of Lido.

What I am against is taking a course from another region, on different soils, in a different climate, with a different builder, construction superintendent, client, equipment....on and on, and claim they can rebuild the same course.

But, to a lesser degree, isn't that almost exactly what was done at ANGC ?
Wasn't the intent to replicate design principles found at TOC ?
I think that worked out pretty well, wouldn't you agree ?

That is disingenuous because no matter what the techno nerds may say, I'm calling BS on it being pulled off.

And yet, Old Macdonald not only lives, but, enjoys exalted status.

Are they trying to rebuild the Lido with the routing, holes sequencing, and golf features replicated as close as possible?

I couldn't answer that, but, I would hope so.

Or will they take the plan, concede it was not drawn with central Florida in mind, and allow the architect to take those 18 hole concepts and arrange them to best fit the land? 

Don, I think your lack of familiarity with Long Beach, LI is getting in the way of your objectivity and conclusions.

If you look at the aerials of Streamsong that Jim Kennedy provided, and then look at aerials of Long Beach, LI, you won't find them to be too disimilar.
Both are relatively flat plots of land with Streamsong having slightly more in elevation changes.
Hence, I don't think "inserting" Lido onto that site would be a departure from what nature (?) presents

If they do that, then I think the course will be better, but it will not be THE Lido. 

"The King is dead, long live the King" may not just apply to the order of succession in monarchies.

Streamsong's Lido, if it is in fact replicated, just might become THE Lido to those absent a sense of history.

Thus I'm curious what they have in mind.

Me too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()