Frankenpine approved by APA today

Today the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) approved a conditional permit for a cell phone company to build a 104-foot tower disguised as a white pine tree and which environmentalists dubbed "frankenpine."

The APA reviewed 1700 pages of testimony and concluded that the proposed cell tower, to be built by Nextel will be substantially invisible and not result in undue adverse impact on the environment.

The fake pine tree would be 114 feet tall and be erected on Buck Mountain, on the east side of Lake George on private property. This would mean that the tower would be about 30 feet higher than most of the other pines on Buck Mountain.

Newsday
Times Union

I agree with the Adirondack Council that this sets a bad precedent, perhaps leading to frankenpines throughout the Adirondacks. The Fort Ann Town Board had voted against the proposal. Supporters argued that it would strengthen critical emergency services in the area and provide tourists with fewer dead zones.

I think this is an unfortunate decision.

I've seen one of those frankentrees and they are UGLY! They draw more attention to themselves because of the outlandish way they attempt to disguise the tower. Looks worse than a fake aluminum Christmas tree in a hemlock forest!! Precedents can be bad.......
....Jade

Isn't there already a cell tower on Black mountain?

Not a cell tower

It's a windmill. And very noisy.

Ungly Ugly Ugly!

OH NO! Before you know it we will be pitching our tents below one of these trees. There will be forests of em everywhere, on every mountain.

There is one on the Hutchenson Pkwy in NY and let me tell you, it sticks out like a sore thumb. It will be the stupidest tree in the area. Since they try hiding it, it will be even more obvious with it's un natural brown bark and fake green branches and leaves.

Don't let em get away with it. Send them the message by not getting Nextel service but be sure to tell them why.

Looking at the map, I can't imagine where they would locate it. The summit is State land.
There is a block of private land on the western side from the shore up the mountain to about 1000 ft.
And another block south of the summit around Crosset Pond up to about 2000 ft.
Maybe it's on Pilot Knob?

I remember a proposal for a tower to go in at YMCA Camp Chingachgook on Pilot Knob when I was working there about 7 (oh my god I'm getting old) years ago. Rumor had it that they were going to erect it in the soccer field. Sara do you remember this?

Not to try and fan the flames at all, but I encountered one of these "frankenpines" at a golf course here in Syracuse, and from a distance it honestly didn't look that bad. That being said, it didn't look totally natural, but I was gratified at the attempt to camoflage the structure instead of leaving it in it's "natural" state.

It's to be on the slopes of Pilot Knob. In response to aesthetic concerns, the height was cut from 114 to 104.

And

To the person that dinged me for this thread, with the comment 'political'.

Jeez - I don't think you get it. I'm sure that the moderators don't see this thread as an inappropriate political discussion. Certainly we can discuss the appropriateness of a decision affecting the our "Views From The Top", can't we?


And Rivet - the tower is on Pilot Knob somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. One of the articles said it was to be located in the hamlet of Kattskill Bay

Beverly,

Like many of us, I too fear it sets a bad precedent and see nothing political in the way you presented this. Pilot Knob is such a gem. I sure hope they don't bulldoze a road up to this herd path mountain. Wish I knew where the site will be located.

Alan

Frankenpine picture

But it looks so real!

This is indeed kind of a drag. Paul Ron makes a good point-if you don't like something a company does, don't support them, and let them know why. I would extend this by encouraging thought about every purchase you make-do you really need it, how was it made, where, by whom, how did it get here, where will it go when you throw it away, etc. Sorry to digress.

The thing is though, I would imagine that Nextel isn't the only company with a cell tower on a mountain. If we want more coverage in mountainous regions, there's gonna be towers on some mountains. "We" can be hard to pin down here, I know. Is we the "tourists" Beverly mentions? The company convincing people they need more coverage with ads and marketing?
I don't have a cell phone, and I don't think they're "good" or "bad" any more than roads are good or bad. For me, it's not worth it to have towers all over the place so that people can talk on the phone everywhere they go. If I'm in the minority on this, I can live with that. There's much more important issues than this, but I don't want to get "political."

Matt

I feel guilty..

I work in the industry.

Bottom line is that many of us rely heavily on these facilities AND these companies would go to tremendous lengths to reduce the landscape polution. Better solutions will come up in the furure. The flagpole style poles are an improvement, even over the Frankenpines IMHO.

I would think that poles that don't break the skyline, ones that sit lower on a hill would be a better solution, even at the expense of having to put them on either side of a MT. Two poles instead of one? not a great trade off...

Most, nearly all actually, cell towers are shared by multiple companies. This should be encouraged. The ones who build solo towers and go it alone should be the ones we, as consumers discourage. Nextel shares many towers. One company stands out among those who choose to go it alone, but I won't mention it here.

Cellularmike

They all stick out like sore thumbs. It's like putting a tulip poplar in the middle of dogwoods. No one is gonna mistake it for a natural tree.

Why is it that when the state(NY) decides to enlarge a ski slope on wild lands , againist state constitutional rules, they just do it, destroying acres of wild land,creating scars on the landscape which are visible for miles, wasting energy with more snow making, adding more light, noise and air pollution, competing with private enerprise, and countless other anti enviromental and stupid things no one gets upset? But put up one tacky pine tree on private land. I'm not a fan of either one, but whats the difference? Do they do this in the other NE states?

Don't shoot me - I'm just offering up a different view (pun intended).

The image of the tower against a clear, sky background does look hideous I can't argue with that. However, if it is sited downslope enough to be seen against a forest backdrop from most pesrpectives then my guess it would be hard to spot unless you were right on top of it.

Even I'm not old enough to remember first hand, but I've seen pictures of WWII warships that were painted in a camoflage scheme known as 'dazzle'

Up close it was laughable, huge irregular shapes of white and grey, but hey, if you are that close to a warship it don't matter what you paint it. Put that same ship a mile away in the North Atlantic and you'd be hard pressed to see it.

The cell tower might just work the same. Up close, or against a solid background color it ain't going to fool anyone. Put it at some distance and that funky shape might just work.

My avatar is made up of 150 x 117 dots. Does it look like a checkerboard?

Bob

Update

The Adirondack Council may go to court on this. John Sheehan, the Council President calls it the "darkest day I've seen in the last 32 years in the history of the park agency."

Strong words, indeed.

He also said:

"It's brutal. They appear to be a giant green toilet brush jammed into the ground by their handle. They all come of out the same box. There's nothing special," said John Sheehan, an Adirondack Council spokesman.

Click to expand...

He can turn a phrase!

Times Union Article

from HikerBob:

The image of the tower against a clear, sky background does look hideous I can't argue with that. However, if it is sited downslope enough to be seen against a forest backdrop from most pesrpectives then my guess it would be hard to spot unless you were right on top of it

Click to expand...

from the APA spokesman:

"We're doing our best to make sure it blends in with the surrounding vegetation," he said. "We think its going to be substantially invisible; that's why it was permitted."
McKeever noted the height of the tower was cut by 10 feet to better blend in with the surrounding stand of white pines, which are about 100 feet tall. In addition, there is a ridge line behind the tower site, which will further reduce visibility.

Click to expand...

Sheehan said:

Sheehan said there are concerns that once this telecommunications tower goes up, the APA will not be able to reject additional permit applications for towers throughout the Adirondack Park.

Click to expand...

I agree with his assessment. Once you let one of these "things" up, it sets a precedent that can't be ignored, making them harder to prevent in the future. This is the first application of the APA's "Tower Policy" and it isn't good. It's very curious, because the agency's staff had recommended against the cell tower.
There's a good summary of the case (as of May 2005) against Frankenpine on the Council's website. And the Council argues that the Frankenpine tower doesn't look like a white pine, but instead is a set of fiberglass branches with 8-inch-long needles arranged in bunches of several hundred per clump, which would not resemble any known tree species in North America.:

Adirondack Council

And to answer an earlier question - the tower will be visible from a popular hiking area, Stewarts Ledge, and visible from Lake George.

Its hard to believe folks actually climbed and hiked without cell phones at one time.... somehow, we have come to think it a god-given right that we have cellular service anywhere now. What went wrong?!?!?

My concern about this kind of thing is less a matter of viewscape clutter than it is of the development of access roads to service the towers. You can fill in the blanks from there.

G.