I chose to present on great camp Santanoni for class last week, I was amazed at the debate around preserving the 45 buildings, built in 1893, that are now owned by the state. Here are some of the main pros and cons surrounding this debate, let me know what you think!
Pros:
Pros:
- Great Camp Santanoni is built almost entirely out of native trees, the great lodge alone boasts 15,000 trees (most of which are used in either full log or half log construction). This makes the camp uniquely rustic and full of Adirondack character.
- The Great Camp is Historically significant; the owners and founders of Great Camp Santanoni once hosted Teddy Roosevelt. Also, the Santanoni farm was the largest great camp farm on record, it used to export milk, meet, and cheese to Albany and the surrounding areas in NY. You can still find citizens with Santanoni milk containers in the surrounding counties.
- Great Camp Santanoni is a tourist attraction. The camp borders the town of Newcomb, which desperately need the money from tourists interested in visiting the camp.
Cons:
- The cost of preserving all 45 buildings, mostly made of wood and other decomposable materials, is extremely high. AARCH has fundraised over 1 million dollars for past repairs and restorations of the property. However, there is more work to be done.
- Visiting is difficult, the Great Camp borders Newcomb, just south of the high peaks and visitors have to park their cars and walk, bike, horseback ride, or ski the rest of the 5 mile trail through the camp's main property (there and back).
- Continued upkeep is necessary. The camp is constantly exposed to the elements and the buildings are over 120 years old. There will always be rotting wood and caving roofs on property that is so old.
I understand the sentimental factor in the debate, and if it were the case that Santanoni were the last surviving great camp I think I would have a different opinion. But I'm not sure how to justify the exorbitant renovation and upkeep costs, especially since there are other great camps that require much less work.
ReplyDeleteI think that because the property is now on Forever Wild land, the government has an obligation to minimize impact on the land and the surrounding forest preserve. There doesn't seem to be one clear answer as to how to minimize impact, but carefully and consciously deconstructed may have the least impact over the long run. Maintaining it, while cultural valuable, would demand consistent impeding of the surrounding preserve by modern machines and almost certainly toxic wastes, and leaving the structure to decay on its own would leave strong (and potentially dangerous) human residue on the land for decades to come. Responsibly deconstructing the site might have a greater impact, but after the initial disruption, the land could be left to "re-wild" on its own, and maintain some integrity in the title "Forever Wild."
ReplyDelete