Musings about the Highland center

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, communication is a two way street & I often don't go out looking for a conversation (Introvert) but I've had far more conversations at the HC than I have had at the PNVC Gear Room.

My .02, at the PNVC I get looked over to see if I belong. I don't care for all the traffic on TRT & prefer approaching Washington from the other side. So, when I stop in PNVC, it's usually after a trip in the Carters so my pack & boots are in the car & I'm just using the bathroom to change in some post hiking clothes for the 4+ hour ride home. Maybe to fit in I need to carry my plastic boots & 12 pt's inside & show off my gear. (Wait, isn't that the type of snobbery the HC newbies are being accused of exhibiting but it's clothing, income & vehicle show-offs) :rolleyes:

Last Sunday, I saw one person changing in the HC bathroom, I sat in the sitting room for over an hour with my stinky (trust me, I'm being kind:eek:, it came up in the family car in a plastic tote) pack littering the entranceway while I waited for my wife & kids to come pick me up. No one complained.

The next day after the family skied at 'Tanmore' we stopped in, walked around, went upstairs, browsed the cafeteria & even had a couple of tortilla chips they had out for guest. No one asked if we were staying there or were members.

Haven't looked yet but we probably need a sperate wind-farm thread. I suspect the AMC will be leading the fight to keep this as far removed from the viewing landscape as possible. Wind is good, but sights are important also.
 
Last edited:
I just stayed Friday and Saturday night at Shapleigh,with an AMC group. I think the place is great! A comfortable bunk,a small kitchen area, and a room to hang out,with clean bathrooms and a hot shower and breakfast for $37.00 seems like a deal to me. And we borrrowed a day pack at HC for free,like all the other available free gear.
Throw in a nice room with a fireplace and a cold beer,followed by a Warren Miller movie late that night( I do miss the couches though) and the HC can be a pretty comfy place to visit.
HC is not PNVC,and it's not supposed to be. Seems like AMC provides a level of service for most price categories,and like anything else in life-to each his own.
The atmosphere is a bit different than Pinkham,but it's still a fairly laid back place. I strolled into the lobby wearing all my trail stuff(no,not crampons:rolleyes:) covered with snow,and I still got a friendly hello at the desk.
I think what makes the HC a little unnerving to some,as it did for me at first,is that it's so new,and clean,and it's just not scruffy enough. They should have consulted Hikers Paradise for their decor:D
 
Let me echo what KayakDan wrote above, plus some. I was there for the same AMC trip and enjoyed myself with the good company of our group and the experience as a whole. I found the staff helpful and friendly and other guests expressed gratitude at being able to borrow gear. (One woman even borrowed a jacket when the zipper on hers broke.) We even had the opportunity to join a yoga class on Sunday morning before breakfast at no additional charge. I hope to be able to do that again, sometime. It felt almost like being on a vacation.
 
griffin said:
You seriously believe the trails to and around Mt. Washington would have "very few people" on them if it weren't for Lakes?

Fewer people spending the night? Certainly.

Fewer boots on the trails? Marginal.

I can't (and don't want to) defend the croo's musical selections or the smell. And yes, the AMC does draw some additional traffic. But anyone who thinks AMC is the reason for crowded trails in the Whites has either never been up Lafayette or is wearing serious blinders.
Click to expand...

I did not say there would be fewer hikers at Lakes without the hut. I said the area would be far more pristine without it. The idea that the hut reduces impact is utterly absurd. It is impact. It causes impact. Just sit on Mt. Monroe on a summer day and observe. There are multiple buildings, machinery noise and loud music, sewerage smells, etc. The people are not the problem at all. But without the hut compound, people would just stop by the Lakes for lunch and pics and move on to the peaks, which is the goal of most hikers. But the hut makes it a major destination. Without the hut, the Lakes of the Clouds area would be much more pristine.
 
Last edited:
forestgnome said:
I did not say there would be fewer hikers at Lakes without the hut. I said the area would be far more pristine without it. The idea that the hut reduces impact is utterly absurd. It is impact. It causes impact. Just sit on Mt. Monroe on a summer day and observe. There are multiple buildings, machinery noise and loud music, sewerage smells, etc. The people are not the problem at all. But without the hut compound, people would just stop by the Lakes for lunch and pics and move on to the peaks, which is the goal of most hikers. But the hut makes it a major destination. Without the hut, the Lakes of the Clouds area would be much more pristine.
Click to expand...

The hut impact, yes. I wonder though if the casual hikers (who are more prone to do Washington than Bondcliff - it was my first hike in NH as a newbie) would stay on the trails or venture off to look at the pretty flowers close up? Where would you put the many signs telling people to stay off teh fragile alpine flowers. IMO, the one small alpine zone sign & the "Stop" some of us scoff at, are not enough.

I'm sure the dog owners on our site are very responsbile for watching their dogs above treeline for keeping them off the vegetation but you've probably seen occasional hikers who don't. Same with parents with kids. Parents get to a spot with a good view & take a break. Kids like seeing a scenic view for about 10 seconds & then it's on to the next disctraction. Sending them off to burn off excess energy while Mom & Dad rest & take in the scenery happens. With the hut the impact is at or very close to the hut.

(I do believe LOC sleeps too many though, IMO for an alpine overnight, the Madison experience is :) MUCH :) nicer.)
 
Mike P. said:
The hut impact, yes. I wonder though if the casual hikers (who are more prone to do Washington than Bondcliff - it was my first hike in NH as a newbie) would stay on the trails or venture off to look at the pretty flowers close up? Where would you put the many signs telling people to stay off teh fragile alpine flowers. IMO, the one small alpine zone sign & the "Stop" some of us scoff at, are not enough.
Click to expand...

This is debatable. The work done by Guy & Laura Waterman on Franconia Ridge does an excellent job of subliminally directing traffic in ways that preserve the local fauna. The little rock walls and meticulous foot-bed placements really make a difference.

On several of the ADK high peaks, they staff the area with "stewards" to "educate" passers-by. They also encourage hikers to carry and help place stones for curbs and cairns. I don't know who funds these activities, but they achieve the same objectives without constructing permanent high-impact focal points.

The Highland Center is private property that caters to whatever specific demographic the AMC wants; but the huts are much more entangled in the public debate. The extent of build-out on Mount Washington has always been problematic, and the AMC has a significant impact up there. Whether for better or worse is always debatable.
 
forestgnome said:
The idea that the hut reduces impact is utterly absurd. It is impact. It causes impact.
Click to expand...
True, but a purpose of this type of facility is not to reduce it but to concentrate it. Indirectly I suppose, through education etc., there might be a reduction in some aspects of the impact but consider the impact if even a fraction of the guests camped instead with all the hardened sites and related damage, low impact ethics notwithstanding.

There is a parallel to this in land use planning. Concentrate land development, preferably in areas of public transportation, rather than subdivide the entire countryside.
 
--M. said:
This is debatable. The work done by Guy & Laura Waterman on Franconia Ridge does an excellent job of subliminally directing traffic in ways that preserve the local fauna. The little rock walls and meticulous foot-bed placements really make a difference.

Also, on the Franconia ridge there are alpine stewards that ridge walk from June to October on the weekends, educating hikers on the fragility of the plant life and directing traffic off those areas.
Click to expand...
 
I believe the ADK Summit Stewards (SS) are funded by the State of NY (DEC)

I've also heard the Stewards referred to by other names, similar to those that made the letters SS infamous. ;)
 
Stan said:
True, but a purpose of this type of facility is not to reduce it but to concentrate it. Indirectly I suppose, through education etc., there might be a reduction in some aspects of the impact but consider the impact if even a fraction of the guests camped instead with all the hardened sites and related damage, low impact ethics notwithstanding.

There is a parallel to this in land use planning. Concentrate land development, preferably in areas of public transportation, rather than subdivide the entire countryside.
Click to expand...

Without the hut there would be no camping there because it's illegal to camp above treeline (yes, unless 2' snow), other than designated places. At designated places, there are use limits.

Besides, are the buildings themselves not impact? And the noise and smell...I just don't get the idea that it's a net positive. Where else in the alpine zone (other than the summit of Mt. Washington) do you hear loud music, machinery noises and smell sewerage?

The hut creates the impact that it claims to mitigate. No hut...not mega-crowds...no camping. The area would be just like Clay Col or Boott Spur, Star Lake, etc.
 
forestgnome said:
Without the hut there would be no camping there because it's illegal to camp above treeline (yes, unless 2' snow), other than designated places. At designated places, there are use limits.

Besides, are the buildings themselves not impact? And the noise and smell...I just don't get the idea that it's a net positive. Where else in the alpine zone (other than the summit of Mt. Washington) do you hear loud music, machinery noises and smell sewerage?

The hut creates the impact that it claims to mitigate. No hut...not mega-crowds...no camping. The area would be just like Clay Col or Boott Spur, Star Lake, etc.
Click to expand...

I have a friend that worked at Lakes for two summers a few years ago and this person has a wonderful story about how there was a sewerage problem the Hut was having that they couldn't seem to fix. Long story short, this person said don't ever drink out of the Ammo....
 
roadtripper said:
I have a friend that worked at Lakes for two summers a few years ago and this person has a wonderful story about how there was a sewerage problem the Hut was having that they couldn't seem to fix. Long story short, this person said don't ever drink out of the Ammo....
Click to expand...

I have my fingers crossed this was from before the big renovation of Lakes a few summers ago; that's when they removed the flush toilets, no?
 
ha! i knew this thread would eventually go back to talking about crappers!
 
KayakDan said:
Which ,as I recall,was the purpose of your visit to the Highland Center!:D
Click to expand...
haha! it was! and it was a fun surprise to see you there! and using it for a little more than i did that night. ;)
 
At least no one on foot is going to miss it. It's well signed...

3327503343_65fa93d0a1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I went in there for the first time on Saturday to meet my party for the Monroe, et. Al. hike. I used the bathroom. I checked the MWO OBS forecast at the front desk. It felt like a hotel lobby for sure - complete with a gift shop full of hats and gloves.

I was a bit disappointed with the gas fireplace though :(

Tim
 
bikehikeskifish said:
It felt like a hotel lobby for sure - complete with a gift shop full of hats and gloves.

I was a bit disappointed with the gas fireplace though :(

Tim
Click to expand...


Snap to that. Gas? Same at Joe Dodge. Lame-o! But with an environmental placard to make it all okay.

By the way, my buddy was checking prices on the hats & gloves, and they were NOT gougingly high. Truth in reporting...
 
I bought a replacement (I'd left mine on the dryer at home) Buff headwear there on my recent visit. They're one of the few places that sell what I think of as an essential part of my gear. They had a selection of colors :p and the price was just what others (Kittery Trading Post, REI) charge.

Is a gas fireplace really worse than a wood burning one?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
Pacific Crest Trail Section J Snoqualmie to Stevens Pass
Replies
5
Views
1K
maineguy
maineguy
DayTrip
MSR Whisperlite Stove
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
19K
peakbagger
P
dom15931
Blackheads 7-14, and "THE NINE" Table-Slide Loop 7-14 to 7-16-17 CATSKILLS
Replies
1
Views
2K
Tom Rankin
Tom Rankin
P
BSP Trp
Replies
1
Views
2K
TDawg
TDawg
leaf
  • Locked
Protect Mount Washington
Replies
2
Views
2K
bikehikeskifish
bikehikeskifish

Latest posts

Top