Hotel on Mt Washington??!!

[Stan]

This is probably not much different, conceptually, than a lot of eco-tourism destinations which I avoid because of my perception that they offer somewhat artificial notions of an outdoor experience. Nonetheless, there are some intriguing hotels/lodges in fascinating places ... if only they were closer to my budget ... and this may be one of them. Overall, I'm not wild about the idea.

I do enjoy thinking about the technical issues behind such a facility. That is the weather side of Mt. Washington and even during season there are many unpleasant days and, at best, obscured visibility. So there are marketing issues, too, and the public will catch on when they learn that "most of our stay consisted of horizontal rain and sleet hitting our faces like thousands of darts."

 

[peakbagger]

Grandfathered usage and tradition is normally the rational for leaving existing structures and uses in place. The cog and the autoroad as well as development on the summit predate the WMNF by quite bit. I expect that when the WMNF was purchasing land it was on a willing seller basis and expect that both the autoroad and cog insisted on keeping full title to the land that they were dependent on. As AMC found out 20 years ago operating private facilities on government land introduces the chance that a change in the political winds can put them out of business. Keeping it on private land definitely allows the owner to retain far more control of their destiny. Reportedly one of the reasons for the AMC to create the Maine hut system was to own the land under their huts so that they didn't have to worry about some future entity telling them they have to leave.

In the late eighties the Cog was sold to the current owners and they promptly started advertising lift service to Tuckerman's Ravine via the Cog to the extent that billboards were advertising this service and I believe reservations were being taken. This was quite controversial and the concept was dropped when reportedly threats were made by the US government regarding the right to operate coal fired locomotives. The next attempt at monetizing the cog was using the cog for lift service to trails within the right of way. By that time the Cog owner had picked up the Mt Washington Hotel at bankruptcy auction and possibly the ski area. There was some "wink wink nod nod" regarding this approach as it was widely expected that skiers would travel onto FS land for backcountry adventures. I believe the experiment failed after a poor snow season but since skiing isn't my thing it may have been for another reason. The most recent successful effort to extract more cash out of the asset is the switch to biodiesel electric locomotives to replace the majority of the coal fired units. They can run far more trips to the summit with the diesels with far less maintenance and manpower. They still run the steam units during less busy hours and charge a premium to satisfy the rail fans. This change out took a few years and most likely bumped up the revenue so the owners are probably trying to find a home for the extra profits.

Given that the cog is proposing work on private land I expect the only way the federal government could prevent them from building the facility is to take the land by eminent domain or somehow compensate the cog owners for loss of economic potential related to the proposed development. There is a frequently litigated concept of "takings" where a federal or state government regulation "takes" value from private land. An example of this is if a endangered species is discovered on private land, the government effectively "takes" the value of the private land without compensating the owner. One example is someone buys piece of waterfront property for a camp and an eagle builds a nest. The owner is precluded from building as it may disturb the eagle.

There is another concept referred to a "Greenmailing" that could conceivably apply to this proposal where a land owner threatens to develop property unless they are paid for the development rights. It has been quite lucrative for forest landowners all over Maine and NH including the Saddleback AT purchase and the more recent Mahoosuc AT purchase from Dillon. Cynically the Cog proposal could be just a case of trolling for some entity to write a check to the Cog for them not to do the project that they really were not that interested in doing to begin with. I don't think this would apply to Presby as he is serial entrepreneur with multiple businesses in the region but one never knows.

 

[una_dogger]

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

Signed. What a terrible idea!

 

[skiguy]

Could be worse! https://www.airvuz.com/video/57c360...age+Clicks&utm_medium=CPC&utm_content=Germany

 

[DayTrip]

I do enjoy thinking about the technical issues behind such a facility. That is the weather side of Mt. Washington and even during season there are many unpleasant days and, at best, obscured visibility. So there are marketing issues, too, and the public will catch on when they learn that "most of our stay consisted of horizontal rain and sleet hitting our faces like thousands of darts."

I would think this alone would kill the concept. If it is to be a more "upscale" experience with dining and such what exactly will people be willing to pay for a day/night enshrouded in fog with no amenities/activities? And if it winds up being more of a draw for hikers than tourists it is hard to imagine how they'd make money with it considering what I assume will be some pretty expensive construction costs for a building keeping people safe in that environment.

And also, is the train capable of running in all weather? What happens if I go up to my room on a nice Friday for the night and I have to stay there for 4 days to ride out a horrendous storm? Do I have to pay for an additional three nights? Is the hotel forced to feed me for free? Do they cancel my FRI reservation after I have traveled all the way there in anticipation of the storm? Seems like a logistical nightmare trying to do this and turn a profit.

 

[sierra]

Forgive me, if I seem blinded by irony. The AMC has two structures built even higher, in even more sensitive tundra, they are accepted. The Cog wants to build on their own property to further enhance their bottom line and Whoa Nelly !!!!! hold on, wait, stop right there, they cant do that. What's good for the goose and all that. They should get their permit, or ALL buildings should be disallowed, fair is fair.

 

[peakbagger]

The obs is already running the "Mt Washington B&B" (much to the consternation of past staff members). There are quite a few volunteers (including at least one VFTT member) who were enlisted over the years to take the load off the staff. The cog would probably put in some language that guests may have to walk down as the obs does. They would most likely advertise home of the worlds worst weather as a selling point. AMC also has quite bit of practice with weather issues.

I knew an individual associated with AVSAR who was involved with a practice run to deal with a cog accident. The owners of the cog didn't want it advertised that there was going to be disaster drill so the rescue organizations officially called it plane crash rescue practice which happened to follow a script that would be identical to a cog accident. It will be interesting to see how various volunteer agencies would like the added responsibility to support a for profit operation (although arguably AMC is effectively already a burden shouldered by the same agencies).

 

[David Metsky]

Could be worse! https://www.airvuz.com/video/57c360...age+Clicks&utm_medium=CPC&utm_content=Germany

I've stayed at the Berghotel Faulhorn in nearby Grindelwald, amazing experience.

 

[skiguy]

Maybe the eventual plan is for a tram. Then they can operate all year long.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V-89jTsxCzU

 

[Chachie]

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 AM buying/seeing this. Between the AMC, the State of New Hampshire and private parties (the Cog) Mt. Washington has been converted from NE's highest peak to a money making machine. Nothing like climbing to the top of what could be a place of monumental solitude and spectacular visions, to instead be greeted with belching exhaust fumes, the roar and rumble of machinery and (my personal favorite) the effluence of human garbage.

Maybe next an helipad? or perhaps a casino? additional parking lots?

It's my earnest hope and dream that by some miracle, one day, a great wind would blow every stick of man-made bullsh*t off the top of that mountain; and that the true Spirit of Agiocochook may once more inhabit the summit.

Until then it's all hotdogs and choo-choo trains.


Just my opinion.

 

[skiguy]

As Barnum stated quite some time ago..." Mount Washington the second greatest show on Earth"!

 

[CaptCaper]

Who cares... I don't...The mountain always had these hotels on it one way or the other.... and most won't even see it. And it would be done in style I'm sure... It's ok if the AMC has huts and centers that scour the lands..? Look what AMC did to Crawford notch.. like a mall there... parking nightmares and too many folks on the trails that we enjoyed so much with so many quiet hikes before they built that monster.
Hate change? well get used to it.. it aint going back to 1950... Look in Whitefield the huge complex they are building for old folks.. or the Meadows of Littleton... just the beginning.

 

[David Metsky]

Between the AMC, the State of New Hampshire and private parties (the Cog) Mt. Washington has been converted from NE's highest peak to a money making machine.

It's been a money making machine for nearly 200 years, starting with the construction of the Crawford Path in 1819 to lead paying guests to the summit from the Crawford House. Since then there have been more paths built, a road and a RR, multiple hotels, visitors center, the observatory, and bike/run/auto races. I'm pretty sure there is a helipad (or at least a place designated for choppers land) for construction and emergency. This isn't some pristine location that is just recently being developed. The history of the mountain is pretty much the history of mountain tourism (including hiking) in the northeast.[/QUOTE]

 

[Raven]

We're not too far along that road to have to worry about precedent yet. The mountain was totally free in all aspects for 480 million years or so prior to that. ��

 

[peakbagger]

The press and possibly readers of the forum may seem to be confused that this is expansion of the summit development. It isn't, the proposed hotel is 1 mile down off the summit so it would be wholly new development. I expect that the purpose is two fold; it gets the project out of the control of the Mt Washington commission and give guests a more remote feeling. I also gets them away from the existing trail network. I rarely if ever actually hike over the summit. When I do traverses I generally take the West Side trail which is located outside of the views of the development of the summit. I expect the Cogs proposed development would be front and center along this trail. The developer is also indicating it will be designed like the grand old hotels of the past which probably indicates that it is to be designed to stand out from the landscape rather than blend in.

 

[egilbe]

And they are all closed, shuttered up and burnt to the ground. None of them were that profitable to keep going. What is different now?

 

[Breeze]

Presby et.al. might do well to wait until the Great Glen Hotel proves either its worth or its folly.

As for construction projects on Mt Washington, someone needs to find a contractor who has actually made a profit in any project on MW, even with a roadway open 6 months of the year. ROFL, if Presby is expecting to get materials to the summit on the MWAR and then get them down to Skyline-- he's delusional.

Personally, I think some folks have rocks in their heads if they think this is a marketable " concept".

 

[egilbe]

Oh its marketable, probably not profitable

 

[jrbren]

And they are all closed, shuttered up and burnt to the ground. None of them were that profitable to keep going. What is different now?

Probably nothing, I would expect they would build it, then the costs would out run the revenues and expectations and it would be shut down within a few years, leaving another scar on the land. Maybe a nice wind shelter from the old foundation like is already on several peaks like Garfield & Mooselauke. Maybe they would even sell it to AMC for yet another hut.

FWIW, I would rather have huts then sprawling tent cities with no septic like they have at Marcy Dam in NY.

Nothing like climbing to the top of what could be a place of monumental solitude

I can't picture Mt Washington being that even without the cog rail, road or structures on top. My guess is it would be Monadnock II (or at least Adams II) I suspect only quotas and permits would reduce the crowd scene. That is not to say I am a favor of adding to the development up there, I would vote for shutting down the cog altogether if it were up to me, or at least power the train engines with something a little more clean air friendly. I can't think of any reason the trains need to blow their whistles/horns.

 

[CaptCaper]

Probably nothing, I would expect they would build it, then the costs would out run the revenues and expectations and it would be shut down within a few years, leaving another scar on the land. Maybe a nice wind shelter from the old foundation like is already on several peaks like Garfield & Mooselauke. Maybe they would even sell it to AMC for yet another hut.

FWIW, I would rather have huts then sprawling tent cities with no septic like they have at Marcy Dam in NY.



I can't picture Mt Washington being that even without the cog rail, road or structures on top. My guess is it would be Monadnock II (or at least Adams II) I suspect only quotas and permits would reduce the crowd scene. That is not to say I am a favor of adding to the development up there, I would vote for shutting down the cog altogether if it were up to me, or at least power the train engines with something a little more clean air friendly. I can't think of any reason the trains need to blow their whistles/horns.

Typical selfish Ma guy.. had beefs with selfish folks about boat ramps on the Cape when I lived there.. Can't share the resources..wan't everthing for their own purpose.. Cog was there before you were... and it will be there after you pass and your children pass. If you want solitude and wilderness there are many other mountains here in NH and other states.... I find them all the time .more enjoyable the Mt.W as well. better views then Mt. W....and also enjoy the quiet...no lease on the dog or fighting for trail space... Save Mt. W and the 48 for the Rat Racer's...