Hotel on Mt Washington??!!

[Snowflea]

Am I the only one who feels like they're living in an alternate reality lately??

SARGENT’S PURCHASE -- The Cog Railway has announced plans to build a hotel and restaurant about a mile below the Mount Washington Summit in time for its 150th anniversary. - See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/business...ount-washington-20161201#sthash.9Ifw5X1T.dpuf

 

[jniehof]

*facepalm*

I...just.

99 feet wide. I presume only way in and out will be the Cog, and all the construction comings and goings confined to the rail property. Just. Wow.

 

[Becca M]

any guess what elevation that would be - ? Would it be above Jacob's Ladder?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The article says at the skyline switch (44°16'34"N 71°18'41"W - http://wikimapia.org/4305903/Skyline-Switch, about where Westside crosses the tracks), which per The Cog's web site is 2/3 of the way up. This image appears to be of the skyline switch - where trains can pass each other.

http://www.railpictures.net/

https://www.google.com/maps/place/4...!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d44.2761111!4d-71.3113889


Tim

 

[sierra]

I'll comment keeping the memory of Sylvestor Marsh alive. " You want to build it where? Go ahead, you have permission to build your Hotel on the Moon "

 

[kltilton]

I'm guessing this will be quite the legal battle. Not sure the original charter for the railroad right-of-way included it's use for a hotel.

 

[KPMMBM]

sounds like the mooning phenomenon will be coming back

 

[peakbagger]

Presby and partner has lot of cash and with it comes political pull in the area. The base station road was closed to year round use for years due to its construction (seasonal road) until they pulled some strings.
The cog property is under Coos county control and since the Balsams project, the Coos County planning board had to put in some pretty serious planning and zoning laws. Previously large developments were not dealt with well. An example was the Great Glen building which burned to the ground and was built with little county oversite. Luckily no one died but it was well known that there were a lot of corners cut. Now that rules are in place the county has to follow them. Given the inaccessibility of the proposed facility, life safety codes are going to be a major issue. AMC gets away with a lot as they were there prior to regulations so are grandfathered but any new public accommodation is going to have to be accessible to fire and ambulance. I expect there would be numerous variances required. I also expect that since the proposed facility is inside the WMNF declaration boundary the FS gets to comment on the development. If the development is above treeline there is going to be a significant push back from the public and many national organizations due to the visual impact as the above treeline section of the presidential ridge is generally regarded as a nationally significant area. The upcoming Great Glen project which is also on private land was actually sanctioned as part of deal in the late eighties where the auto road sold a large block of land at the base of Mt Washington to the WMNF with the agreement that the remaining inholding could be developed in the future. I do not believe the Cog has such an agreement in place.

 

[Raven]

Am I the only one who feels like they're living in an alternate reality lately??

SARGENT’S PURCHASE -- The Cog Railway has announced plans to build a hotel and restaurant about a mile below the Mount Washington Summit in time for its 150th anniversary. - See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/business...ount-washington-20161201#sthash.9Ifw5X1T.dpuf

Uhhhhhhhhh.........

 

[egilbe]

"If you build it, they will come"

 

[peakbagger]

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx...by-to-appear-before-coos-planning-board-dec-8

 

[Grey J]

Unfortunately the country seems to be headed in this direction. All development is good development. The resource, in this case the mountain, is there to be used, or in my language, exploited. Preservation, appreciation, low impact uses, even the concept of eco-tourism is being eclipsed by $$$$ signs.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

sounds like the mooning phenomenon will be coming back

The good old days. I remember.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

Presby said the hotel would include about 35 “well-appointed” rooms and a full-service restaurant that would cater to hikers and tourists alike.

I've no doubt about the second group but I highly doubt it will cater to the first group.

The only places to stay overnight on Mount Washington are the Mount Washington Observatory, which rents space in the visitor center, and the Appalachian Mountain Club’s Lake of the Clouds Hut. Presby said both of those options are spartan in their amenities.

Thank You for proving my point Mr. Presby.

 

[DayTrip]

I think i just threw up in my mouth a little. That will be a nauseating eye sore if that should happen. The stretch between Mt Clay and the edge of the Great Gulf is one of my favorite spots in the Whites. I can't imagine looking out at some ridiculous luxury hut right smack in the middle of the lawn. Booo.

 

[roadtripper]

Please sign this petition if you are against the idea:

https://www.change.org/p/hiking-com...for_starters_page&utm_term=des-lg-bing-no_msg

 

[peakbagger]

Unfortunately the country seems to be headed in this direction. All development is good development. The resource, in this case the mountain, is there to be used, or in my language, exploited. Preservation, appreciation, low impact uses, even the concept of eco-tourism is being eclipsed by $$$$ signs.

I don't necessarily buy your contention, yes there is fairly broad support for motorized recreation development in the county and previously Coos County had very weak if nonexistent planning and zoning rules in effect. The Balsams project changed that substantially and the county created and enacted a fairly comprehensive approach to review projects, some times much to the annoyance of the Balsams developer. Even the proposed Great Glen project had to go through extensive review this time. John Scarinza the head of the Coos county planning board is from Randolph a town that has very tight development restrictions and also the town that created the largest town forest in NH to protect the viewshed of the northern presidentials. Granted the Coos county commissioners are far more focused on short term gain versus long term impact but I expect even they would be careful to tread into what will become a political landmine. One of the very obvious demarcation points in the area is US Rt 2, the county generally feels that if it happens north of RT2 few will notice while generally they tread far more lightly if south of RT2. The development will be particularly front and center from the Mt Washington Hotel complex, if was formerly owned by the Cog group who made a substantial profit when they sold it but I expect that the large real estate entity that owns the Mt Washington hotel and ski complex now is going to object to the potential visual impact of additional development on the cog (unless they get a piece of the profits).

Ultimately it comes down to that in order to sell the concept, the Cog has to sell an experience that is unlike those available in the area and the experience they are selling are extensive views west on a shoulder of Mt Washington. They aren't marketing to the general hiking public, they are marketing to affluent customer and rail fans. That means getting the buildings up above the trees on the ridgeline to get the long views and that means a potential for major impact to the view shed. With careful architecture the visual impact to the surroundings can probably be softened by the use of appropriate building materials but its still going to be present and I expect particularly noticeable at night where it will be another bright spot on the side of what was dark landscape. The countys new zoning and planning regulations are going to provide a framework for review but unless regional and national organizations bring in some publicity this proposal could get through. Add in the spotlight of national and regional press and its far more unlikely.

 

[TCD]

Unfortunately the country seems to be headed in this direction. All development is good development. The resource, in this case the mountain, is there to be used, or in my language, exploited. Preservation, appreciation, low impact uses, even the concept of eco-tourism is being eclipsed by $$$$ signs.

I'm not seeing this. Use a long term perspective. From 150 years ago until fairly recently, rampant development was taking place all over the mountains. Numerous highways, summit hotels, castles, etc., remain from that era, none of which would ever be considered or permitted today. (Remember Whiteface; Prospect; Equinox; Mansfield; even little Pack Monadnock; and all the existing development on Washington.) Heck, IIRC over 100 men were killed in 1870 to build the Mount Washington Highway as a tourist attraction. Imagine today proposing to pave a highway to the top of a mountain and kill 100 workers in the process - not on anyone's radar, anywhere across the spectrum.

 

[dug]

I'm not seeing this. Use a long term perspective. From 150 years ago until fairly recently, rampant development was taking place all over the mountains. Numerous highways, summit hotels, castles, etc., remain from that era, none of which would ever be considered or permitted today. (Remember Whiteface; Prospect; Equinox; Mansfield; even little Pack Monadnock; and all the existing development on Washington.) Heck, IIRC over 100 men were killed in 1870 to build the Mount Washington Highway as a tourist attraction. Imagine today proposing to pave a highway to the top of a mountain and kill 100 workers in the process - not on anyone's radar, anywhere across the spectrum.

Interesting comment, and one I agree with...when talking of the mountains only (which is what this is about, I know).

From a valley perspective, much more today than years ago.

 

[TJsName]

I'm not seeing this. Use a long term perspective. From 150 years ago until fairly recently, rampant development was taking place all over the mountains. Numerous highways, summit hotels, castles, etc., remain from that era, none of which would ever be considered or permitted today. (Remember Whiteface; Prospect; Equinox; Mansfield; even little Pack Monadnock; and all the existing development on Washington.) Heck, IIRC over 100 men were killed in 1870 to build the Mount Washington Highway as a tourist attraction. Imagine today proposing to pave a highway to the top of a mountain and kill 100 workers in the process - not on anyone's radar, anywhere across the spectrum.

Very good point. I often wonder why the opposition to adding something new doesn't translate to support for removing some old? If a building would so mar the landscape, why not push for the huts removal? To me it becomes a question of value and function. If the AMC huts didn't allow day service, then I suspect public opinion would plummet. If this new structure becomes a functional stop for hikers, then I don't see how it would be significantly different than the other structures along the way. For me personally, I would prefer there were no buildings above treeline.