Well said, John. I'm like you and am witholding judgement on the visitors' center until I learn more about it. Before we all get in a lather, let's not forget that the presentation to the Commission is but a first step. There are many hoops to be jumped through before the center becomes a reality. To wit, this idea still has to be run by the various historical bodies in the two states, plus the feds. I suspect that now that the C&TS is a designated National Historic Site (I hope I have that right) the job may be a bit more difficult. So be it. In my mind this is a good thing. In contrast to the pending telegraph system, the visitors center will have an aura of permanence, whereas the telegraph system could be added without altering the historical character of the yard area. It will merely be restoring what was there at one time. The same cannot be said of the visitors center, so any decision on that must be approached very carefully. Much like making love to a porcupine. Make a bad decision here and we are onto a slippery slope.
Case in point is the new engine house. I can well remember the brouhaha which ensued over that. That being said, the engine house was a necessity. Now you can argue (as some have even today) that it should have been built to more reflect the appearance of a roundhouse instead of a brick truck wash. A fair criticism, but the fact of the matter is that the deed is done. Let's just not make another perceived mistake.
But let's fast forward to the present. Jumping to the bottom line, I have some severe reservations as to the location of the proposed visitors center. Frankly, I don't have enough facts yet to form a concrete opinion, but I am concerned about a rush to judgement here, hence the MEBBE in the message title. I personally can't sign off on the location until I am assured that all options have been considered.
My major concern is that the proposed location down by the log bunk house intrudes into an area heretofore has remained relatively pristine - historically speaking. (Do I see a slippery slope lurking?) There has to be a better location.
Second (and here I'm taking a crack at the FREINDS), as has been pointed out, this idea has been rattling around for some time, and the information has been available. Unfortunately, there has never been an open forum to my knowledge, like this board, where an open and unfettered discussion can take place. I'm a FRIENDS member, and I fully applaud the effort the organization has made to put together their information. A masterful job, but flawed in its distribution. Unless you know about the FRIENDS site, you would never know that the subject of the visitors center existed. In my opinion, this is a mistake. A question of this magnitude should be openly discussed amongst all who love and care about the C&TS - FRIENDS members or no.
I would love to see the FRIENDS get on this board and mix it up. Sure, there is going to be a lot of useless garbage thrown around, but at least the community at large will have a better chance to voice an opinion. For the FRIENDS to say that the info has been available is a cop out, for the reason I stated above. In this instance, and others like it to undoubtedly to come, the FRIENDS have an obligation to actively engage a larger audience other than FRIENDS members.
Now for whatever it's worth here is my semi-informed suggestion as to an alternate location for a visitors center:
Consider building it as envisioned, but on the slope opposite the restrooms. This would do several things:
1. It would put it in an area which has already (for good reasons) been historically compromised.
2. It would be a bit more centrally located in relation to the business district. (Roger would love it being across the street from his hotel.)
3. It would avoid any further intrusion into the more-or-less untouched historical area, and avoid the slippery slope syndrome.
For all I know at this point, this alternate location may have already been considered and discarded. If so, I would be very interested in learning about the thinking which led to the choice of the location down by the bunkhouse. Perhaps I have missed a critical fact or two.
In conclusion to this overly long blather, I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion, with or without the active participation of the FREINDS organization. At this point I'm reserving judgement, but this question if far, far too important to not make an honest effort to make sure that all interested parties, regardless of any affiliation are fully informed.
CJ
