A gondola ride to the bottom of the Grand Canyon would be like a gondola ride to the top of Everest.
These projects are deeply frustrating because all the developers have to do is get them built once - they can essentially fail as many times as they need to in order to get their project built. If you oppose this kind of project, you have to succeed in your efforts over and over again. If you fail once, the wild nature of the place is lost.
We need to preserve wild places, and this is one of them.
In high school, every Monday my geology teacher Mr. Weinle would show slides from a national park he visited. One of them -- I don't remember which -- had an asphalt sidewalk running through it. He said "I was mad as hell when I saw this. This is nature! You should protect it!"
Then he switched slides to the next picture he took: it showed a man with leg braces walking through the park. He held up his fingers and said "at this point I felt about this tall."
These parks don't just exist in a vacuum. They exist so that people can enjoy them.
I'm not necessarily endorsing this modification to the Grand Canyon. There is value in preserving it for the future as is, and there is also value in making it accessible. It's a trade-off. Some parks -- and I don't just mean the flat ones, since the amazing geology generally happens where there is significant vertical distance involved -- should be accessible even to those with special needs. Maybe enough are already. Maybe not.
No. They exist because they exist. It's a privilege that we get to appreciate them.
We can't seem to lose the notion that the universe was created for us.
When the earth is a barren ball of rock and humanity is long-gone, maybe someone out there will notice the irony in it all.
> I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
I think the original guy meant they exist because humans voted to protect them for our enjoyment. I don't think we're protecting these sites (national parks) simply to exist. The land would be too useful for other functions to just "exist". They're protected and to some degree (imo) they should be made accessible so they can stay protected/respected :>
Think about the most beautiful, breathtaking beach or vista you've been to. I'm talking blow-your-mind, stop you in your tracks to contemplate the natural world caliber of beautiful. Maybe you've never had that experience, but if you have, how long did it take you to get there? how many people were around?
My point is, the beauty of these places is in many cases derived specifically from their remoteness. Their inaccessibility is precisely the nucleus of what makes them what they are.
Sure it's absolutely unfair that disabled persons won't have that experience without far more effort, if at all.
But is the solution really to make it such that no one can?
One of my own favorite sites, long reachable only by a long and often difficult to traverse dirt road, had a paved road put in some years ago. And while there were some environmental arguments in favor (the dust from vehicles washed into local creeks and affected aquatic life), it hugely changed the nature of the destination at the end of the road.
Some places are really beautiful, but would not be less beautiful just because people can enjoy them.
Maybe the solution is to preserve these places until we have relatively cheap tech (like quadcopter drones) that can carry people to some of these places. Allow them to come in only at certain times or whatever so normally the place is still as wild as ever. Or VR connected to drones that people can fly around... there are many possibilities in the not-too-distant future that probably.
But right now the only practical way to make these places accessible is with paved roads so that's what happens.
Yeah, but we're not talking about a asphalt sidewalk here. We're talking about a massive gondola system. There are far less invasive ways to make the park more accessible. You can currently ride a mule down to the colorado river from the main park offices. If you're unable to take a mule, you can take a helicopter tour.
I see the point you're making. I've been to the Grand Canyon, and it's difficult to get to. Even off the main road, it's 30 slow miles over unpaved dusty, bumpy road to get to the Western rim. If night falls, you're in tough shape because the road is unlit. If you are low on gas, or need a break, there's no place to stop. Even in 2015, the canyon is hard to get to.
But to turn it into a mini-Las Vegas would be a crime.
You can't turn nature into a tourist trap. There's no way the two can co-exist, and nature would lose. It's difficult to get to, yes. But that's the charm of it.
SkyWalk is a tourist trap, expensive as hell. You are not even allowed cameras on the actual skywalk, so you have to buy their photos. The skywalk itself is an inslut to nature. I hope I knew a way of getting to the Canyon from Las Vegas without having to pay this robbers.
I'm surprised that nobody else has brought this up: No less an authority on matters arid and wild than Edward Abbey has written extensively [0-1] on the inaccessibility and remoteness of the Grand Canyon. If I had to sum up his position on this topic, it might be "That's the point."
You can simply drive to the rim. The entire path around the rim is paved and handicap-accessible. You can take a mule into the canyon. It's difficult to get to only in the sense that you must drive for several hours from any nearby city to reach the area.
(Just wanted to point out that the obvious solution there is to fix the poor man's legs, not pave the world. For perspective, one of my best friends is quadriplegic and I'm pretty sure that he would love to visit the Grand Canyon and he would deplore this development with all his heart.)
These parks don't just exist in a vacuum. They exist so that people can enjoy them.
... Enjoy them in certain ways, that preserve their nature as much as possible. Think about designated wilderness areas, for example. How do you run an asphalt sidewalk through a designated wilderness area, where rangers must use hand-saws instead of chainsaws? Can it still be wilderness if you do?
“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
There are asphalt trails in some side canyons of Yosemite Valley. They are asphalt because the trails are so heavily used that any normally constructed trail would require frequent significant (expensive) maintenance. Asphalt was the least worst option.
But why do the trails get so much usage? Because Yosemite Valley has experienced heavy development, which allows a ton of people to stay there at one time.
The actual mission of the National Park Service, according to the bill that created it, is:
> to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
It's the last part where people get mad at the NPS. One cannot look at a picture of Yosemite Valley as it originally existed, and the mess it is today, and think that it's "unimpaired."
Likewise, I don't see how anyone can look at what is proposed for the Grand Canyon and say it would leave the GC unimpaired.
What makes natural experiences so valuable is that they are not shaped to the conveniences of human beings. National parks are not just about pretty scenery. They are about preserving an experience that once was common, but is almost gone.
There is no way to improve access to that experience without also harming it. And once it is gone, it's gone forever. We have no idea how to create natural experiences. All we can possibly do is protect the few we haven't already wrecked.
If equal access for all is your primary concern, then what is the argument for preserving wilderness at all? Why not build roads into every wild area and escalators to the top of every mountain?
And what would the wilderness look like if we did that?
> A gondola ride to the bottom of the Grand Canyon would be like a gondola ride to the top of Everest.
Yeah! Oh wait, you mean bad.
Counterpoint: I once rode a sled down a shiny metal track to get down from the Great Wall of China, instead of walking back down the equivalent of 20 flights of steps. It was great!
If they'd also had a gondola to ride up in, I would've been able to spend that much more time and energy exploring the top. And imagine the impact it would have on the less able-bodied.
There is a qualitative difference between a natural experience and a man-made experience. It's not about the age, although natural landscapes are obviously old. It's about experiencing the forces that shaped the landscape, in their original form.
Natural landscapes are valuable because they don't care about people; they make people small again. You can't adapt that to human convenience, and protect it, at the same time.
In a conversation about whether or not to add man-made touches to natural beauty... you didn't mention modifying natural beauty, but an already man-made thing.
The works of men, and men themselves, are part of nature.
It is nothing short of hubris to believe otherwise. We, like all apex predators before us, will soon become extinct from this planet leaving only fossils in our wake.
Nature encapsulates us - not the other way around.
Sorry but that's ridiculous. Yes, on a philosophical level you can say that, but the word "nature" is defined as excluding anything human-related.
> "The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations" - OED
Otherwise there would be no point having that word as it would by synonymous with "everything".
We fought a similar gondola project in my town and won. Developers wanted to build a gondola to the top of the Stawamus Chief, a big granite monolith on the edge of town. It got shot down. The fact that it's a provincial park probably helped. The gondola got built in a more suitable location, to the top of a nearby ridge, and now everyone is happy.
Hopefully the people organising against this Grand Canyon silliness see similar success.
Well, I'd like to take some real credit, but all I did was sign a petition and mutter darkly. There was a lot of opposition and I guess every name made a difference.
As far as climbing the Chief goes, get up here, you aren't getting any younger. A bunch of great new routes have gone up over the last few years, including some stellar moderates:
I rode by bicycle to the South Rim, put my bike on the roof rack of some tour bus, walked down to the bottom, up the other side and got back on my bicycle again, to keep going up through Utah.
I have done a lot more riding in Wales where we have Mt Snowdon, complete with a railway to the top. Furthermore, there is a cafe there, 'blighting' the highest point in Wales (and England).
However...
The railway is cute because it was old. Aeons ago that was shocking new machinery and there must have been those that feared the wilderness being lost. This new-fangled gondola will also gain pedigree and heritage over time, to garner a worthy history of its own.
The tourist tailored top doesn't spoil the mountain for me and I am glad that there is one 'must see' mountain that is accessible to all. The truth is that the 'must see' mountain makes the others second rate when it comes to height. This means they are all relatively devoid of tourists.
So consider the gondola going to the deepest part, the prime spot and totally letting the car-bound tourists having it. They won't need to stray too far and it could work wonders for depleting the general area of tourists. Which is good for those that can be bothered to get their without the aid of a motor.
I was thinking the same thing. Mount Washington sounds very similar. It's the highest peak in the northeastern United States, and part of the famous Appalachian Trail. It also has both an auto road and an old-style mountain climbing railway, with some touristy stuff at the top.
Hikers don't seem to mind this very much -- in fact, it's common for even fairly experienced hikers to ascend in the morning and take a bus down later, so that they may spend more time at the summit. There are several somewhat lower (but still spectacular) peaks in the same range, which are largely untouched.
A gondola ride to the top of Everest would be awesome. Right now, 1.4% of the people who try to summit it die. That's ludicrous and totally indefensible. Anyway it's not as wild as it used to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Everest_economy
That's because those people have no business being there. Those mountains are for genuine climbers that can earn their ascent there, not idiots with too much money and no respect for a mountain, who have sherpas basically push them to the top.
I hate this ridiculously entitled attitude. If you aren't a great climber in fantastic physical shape, just don't go to Everest. I have the same kind of contempt for people who pay crazy sums of money to go on a Safari in Africa with loads of guides to shoot lions or elephants, so they can show their friends back home the pictures and the carcasses.
Actually - in that same vein. Those are the same people that show up to Burning Man spending insane sums of money and completely defeating the spirit of that event.
I am not a climber, a hunter, or someone who has ever gone to Burning Man, but if you want to take part in those cultures, you should do so with respect and humility.
> That's because those people have no business being there.
Says who? Who are you to tell people where they have business being?
> Those mountains are for genuine climbers that can earn their ascent there, not idiots with too much money and no respect for a mountain, who have sherpas basically push them to the top.
Again, says who?
> I hate this ridiculously entitled attitude.
Like the one you're showing telling others what they should and shouldn't do?
Where are you going with this? People climb Mt Everest and die. Who says they shouldn't be there? You are free to be a rotten corpse, too, if you like.
Good decision-making requires good judgement. If you think judgement is unfair, then go ahead and make dumb decisions. Though the whole point of having a conversation is to find out how to make good decisions, not to defend bad ones in the name of some misplaced 'right to be stupid.'
>Says who?
Well, I do. If that's not good enough for you, then do something about it instead of pretending like there's some great authority I should be appealing to in the exercise of good reason.
People die climbing it, that's not a justification for saying people don't belong there when what's being suggested it not climbing but riding up in an enclosed environment to tour it. Your position has no merit.
People belong wherever they want to go, dangerous or not. People choose to do dangerous things, accept it and stop trying to say where others should or shouldn't go. Danger is not a reason to say you can't do that.
Biology. Dying from a cerebral oedema is one way your body tells you "you shouldn't have come here". Rushing quickly up that kind of altitude is dangerous to your health - for example, one of the biggest contributors to altitude medicine was when India rushed an army to the Himalayas in the '60s to counter China [1]. They got a lot of pulmonary and cerebral oedemas, and the sizable affected population really helped the literature in the topic.
Also, keep in mind that the opinion offered was in response to someone basically saying that it was indefensible to not build a gondola ride to the top of everest. I notice you didn't tell that commenter "says who?".
Nonsense, people fly everyday, they're called pressurized cabins; that you think anyone is suggesting otherwise is your lack of imagination, not some limitation of biology.
One might similarly say people in wheelchairs have no business seeing the view from a tall building, or that only able-bodied seamen deserve to travel around the world.
The point of accessibility is to allow proportion of humanity to live normally, to do the same things that most of the rest can do; i.e. work, see a movie, and yes, take in a view. The reason to do that is that it improves the lives of the smaller proportion while at least not injuring the rest. (You believe only having stairs in a tall building would be a feature?)
Are you willing to make the argument that looking out from the top of Everest or tramming to the bottom of the canyon for an afternoon is something that everyone should be able to do? That it's more important than preserving those areas for the future?
A while back, I had the opportunity to visit Blarney Castle in Ireland. As it turns out, the castle is an unreconstructed ruin; if you want to kiss the stone or at least take in the view, you have to climb a long, cramped, tight, steep spiral staircase. I'm old, out of shape, arthritic, and not fond of being the cause of a fairly large scale body recovery in the middle of a major tourist attraction, so I didn't go up. So far, I haven't noticed any consequences of the lack, and from what I enjoyed about the site, I'd just as soon they didn't strap an elevator to the side of the tower.
Everest tourism has costs, both in terms of sheer litter and in the lives of people who probably shouldn't be doing it anyway. Grand Canyon development also has costs which would reduce the value of the site. Are those costs worth the benefits?
> Are you willing to make the argument that looking out from the top of Everest or tramming to the bottom of the canyon for an afternoon is something that everyone should be able to do?
Yes, absolutely. Why shouldn't humanity aspire to that?
> Grand Canyon development also has costs which would reduce the value of the site. Are those costs worth the benefits?
My point of view is that yes, the benefits do indeed outweigh the costs. There's plenty of canyon for everyone. Let one section be for families, children, the elderly and lazy. There will still be plenty of trails for hikers who want to get away from all that.
Doesn't seem very aspirational to me. The glory in Everest isn't the nice view, but the feat it takes to get there. When people talk about Everest stories, the view doesn't feature very strongly.
Because 7 billion people trekking to Everest would transform the character of the place so thoroughly that the reason people started doing en masse in the first place would be lost to history. Tragedy of the Commons 101.
The way we prevent these tragedies is via regulation. Needless to say, this demands time and expense that could always be used elsewhere, so if there's a natural barrier limiting access, then by all means, rely on that instead.
Once you open something to everybody, you've got to deal with...everybody. Generally speaking the people who are trying to profit from the initial development have zero interest in carrying the costs their ventures impose. Essentially, they're in the uncompensated extraction business and yeah a lot of people take a very dim view of that and will quite reasonably use any and all measures thay can to block what amounts to theft from the commons.
That's mountain climbing elitism. The "great climbers" made it look cool, then others with more money than skill figured out their own way to do it, and had a great time to boot. I'm sure that drives elitists nuts, kind of like how I'm sure software hackers building with Arduino makes EE majors nuts.
A better analogy would be if an software hacker paid for several starving EE students to come build an amazing Arduino project for their child's science fair, then bragged to everyone about how smart their child is.
Alternatively, imagine Larry Ellison paying for a shitload of comp-sci PhD students to comb through The Art of Programming to look for mistakes, only to submit them under his name so he could get his own cheque from Knuth?
Earnest hobbyism and trying to learn new things is awesome and should be strongly encouraged in everyone. Buying your way to the top and cheapening everyone else's experience is crass and a good way be shunned in almost any social setting.
Your examples illustrate someone lying. Merely arriving at the summit of Everest by assisted means does not make one a liar. People do many things - summiting among them - for their own amusement, not to make grandiose claims. Jon Krakauer "bought" (or had it purchased on his behalf) his way to the top of Everest and to my knowledge has not equated himself with Sir Edmund Hillary to date.
If teleportation was invented, would it cheapen the pioneer's accomplishments if we could just buy a ticket to teleport to the top, grab a peek, and teleport home?
I'm a mountain climber. I'm not Everest caliber. It doesn't sound like elitism to me to say that only experienced, skilled, healthy climbers have any business on a deadly mountain, any more than if I said only experienced, skilled, healthy individuals had any business being a test pilot.
It's not elitism that I can't climb this rock or that mountain. It's the simple limit of my abilities. That's the beauty of it, really, because I have the same opportunity as anybody else- get better.
Speaking of burning man... I missed the ticket sales because my dumbass didn't check the "register try to buy tickets" option on my burner profile. Anyone have one to spare?
>> Right now, 1.4% of the people who try to summit it die. That's ludicrous and totally indefensible.
The only problem I have with it is that bodies are rarely taken back and therefore contribute to the pollution of the mountain. Other than that....as long as everyone climbing knows that there is a 1.4% chance of dying, it's fine. I imagine there are extreme sports which have a similar if not higher death ratio,and I would never want to be forbidden from doing something I love just because I "can" die. And I imagine climbing to the top of Everest is what makes it special, not just standing on the top.
The only problem I have with it is that bodies are rarely taken back and therefore contribute to the pollution of the mountain.
A dead human body is "pollution"? I guess you can counting the clothing and equipment as pollution or trash, but I would call a dead human body quite "natural".
Well, in an environment where the human body will never decay it's pretty much pollution. Please don't take it wrongly - I don't mean to disrespect those that died there,but it's true that their bodies stay there for years. And how many dead bodies can Mount Everest keep until it looks like a scene from some depiction of hell? 100? 1000? 10000?
I'm not saying we should forbid climbing. But offering a way to make the trip without dying would be nice. Also, having a gondola that goes up there would make it easier to remove dead bodies of climbers.
Putting a set of stairs to the peak appeals to the type of person who wants to be on top of Everest, but not to the type of person who wants to climb Everest.
A set of stairs, obviously, ruins the wildness of one of the world's great wildnesses, as well as costs a lot of money for something that would likely go relatively unused.
Otherwise, as has been pointed out, you can take a helicopter to the top, but honestly, that may prove over time to be more risky than the slower way.
I don't get the argument here. Climbing Everest is dangerous, yes. Launching a rocket is dangerous. Going to the bottom of the ocean is dangerous. Putting your head inside a alligator's mouth is dangerous. Walking a tightrope across two tall buildings is dangerous. Space travel is dangerous. Sometimes, dangerous things should just be left alone by most people, not made impotent so any average person can do them. Danger is part of life.
Some dangerous things are worth doing, in spite of being dangerous. Some dangerous things are worth mitigating the danger so more people can do them. Some dangerous things aren't really all that worthwhile.
Seeing a doctor used to be dangerous. Traveling to other countries used to be dangerous. So if I follow your logic we should get rid of all planes and travel because things that are dangerous should remain dangerous because reasons? And we should make sure surgery is still dangerous because reasons?
I totally agree. Things like life jackets for sailors, ropes for climbers, and helmets for motorcyclists have made those sports impotent for the real men/women of this world who scorn safety. If you are not willing to risk it, just stay at home so the rest of us can unflinchingly face danger head on.
A gondola to a mountain climber is hardly the same thing as a helmet to a motorcyclist. More like a city bus to a motorcyclist.
Helmets much more readily compare to ice axes, crampons, weather forecasting, ropes, anchors, avalanche beacons, pulleys, radios... and helmets! Mountain climbers are not against safety.
A gondola ride to Everest would be awful. A quick ascent to that height would virtually guarantee some pretty awful side effects for most passengers. I certainly wouldn't want to be on it.
Millions of people ascend to the height of Everest's summit every day, extremely quickly. I imagine that such a purpose-built gondola would, like modern jets, have a pressurized cabin.
So why do we need the gondola at all? If people just want to hit 29,035 feet above sea level, they can take a plane anywhere in the world.
What makes the top of Everest interesting to visit is that to do it, a person has to overcome very difficult natural challenges. So a gondola to the top would destroy the very value it was supposed to provide.
What's the point of the gondola, then, if you can't step out? If you just want to sit in a metal cabin and enjoy the view, you might as well go in a plane.
I'd go for a solution inside the mountain - maybe a train (like the Jungfrau - not to the top though) or a funicular then a elevator to take you to the very top (like Les Deux Alpes - though that is a glacier dome rather than a peak).
Millions of people haven't even summited Everest (much less everyday, can you imagine? It's like Dane Cook's skit about thousands of firefighters). The numbers around 4,000 according to a quick google search. And it's a multi day trip with plenty of acclimatization stops. Not only that but 100s of those 4000 have perished.
It's not some trivial walk around the park just because it's not considered one of the hardest summits in the world.
As for whether or not the gondola would be a good thing, I guess that'd depend on a lot of feasibility studies and cost analysis (cost to the environment, to the local populations way of life, monetary costs).
You clearly didn't catch the crux of his point - millions of people fly in passenger jets every day at Everest's elevation. All you'd need to do is pressurize the gondola, and there'd be no need for acclimatization.
As the altimeter approaches 17,000 feet, a package of potato chips balloons outward until it ruptures a seam. Sunscreen and hand sanitizer erupt unbidden from bottles. In soft sleeper class, Chinese businessmen sprawl listlessly on their bunks, sucking oxygen from plastic hoses. The bathrooms smell of vomit.
There are two problems with that. One is that for previous and future traditional ascenders it would "cheapen" the experience. In essence it makes scaling it mundane, so you would have elitists oppose this. The second is that unless you institute a limited lottery system Everest would become littered like mt Fujiyama. So basically nature becomes spoiled by commercial interests.
Everest is already covered in junk and dead bodies. Most of this is hidden by snow, but it's a lot closer to a walking up a snowy trash heap than people want to admit.* A little over 4 thousand people have reached the summet which is about the same number of billionares in the world. So, it feels fairly prestegious even if it's mostly a question of how much your willing to spend to get there.
*Mostly becase people use a small set of trails on their assent, and really don't have the enery to bring their trash down with them. The majority of the mountain is untouched, but the trails get a lot of traffic.
likely any new development near the Grand Canyon or similar would be required to have something akin to gondola because of the ADA.
While I agree preserving nature is the best reason, guilt over treatment of Indians by past generation has effectively allowed the greediest of them to run all over conversation areas and state laws.
The price of solitude is effort. Don't want to share nature with others? Walk a mile and you will filter 99% of humanity. Three miles uphill will filter 99.9%.
My trip to the Grand Canyon was tailored for solitude. We drove hours to get to a trailhead on the North Rim, hiked a a steep trail down, camped (by a hard-to-believe falls/spring), and hiked up and out by moonlight to avoid the heat. I don't mean to sound hardcore - I'm really not - I just like solitude and that's how you get it.
I'm ambivalent about this particular proposal. Exposure to nature creates naturalists. At the same time people ruin nature - the experience of it and it's physical environment. It's a balancing act and I have no idea if this is too much or too little.
The proposed development doesn't expose people to nature any more than a shrub in the middle of a shopping mall does. It is simply trying to convert one of the greatest natural wonders in the world into a cash grab for greedy, short sighted developers.
Preservation of natural beauty like the Grand Canyon is one of the most important functions of government. Allowing this would be a disaster.
"...who like the idea of enabling a large number of people to enjoy the great canyon’s very heart, a stunningly beautiful and remote site long inaccessible to the masses."
Don't they realize that being remote and inaccessible is a big part of what makes it stunningly beautiful? The moment you arrive there with 10,000 other people, the place will no longer have what you came there to see.
I somewhat disagree. I rode around it on a motorcycle from the bay last year. It was my first time seeing it. I hate crowds just like everyone else, and there was a crap ton of buses with even more people there, but I have to say -- I didn't expect much... "big whoop, grand canyon..." but when I walked up to the side in person, the shear size and strange 3d illusion the sight put on my brain, I just couldn't comprehend. I was put in awe and literally couldn't turn away for 10 minutes... the people around hadn't detracted from that. But everyones different... the southside will always be crowded, if you want it to be remote, just plan a trip to the north side.
The whole point of the article is that the inside will be like the south side. The north side only works because it is remote—if you set up a gondola from the south side to the north side, then your "just plan a trip to the north side" advice won't work. It's even worse to do that to the real remote area, which is the floor itself.
The current canyon r2m "tourist" corridor is 17 miles long by maybe 1/2 a mile wide (of the 100+m miles length). Also if its only on indian land, the thing is on a side-canyon off to the east that is 80% out of theway anyway. You have to take 4x4 roads or trails over to Nankoweap. What is a pity is that area is supposed to be really nice, and is on the edge of the existing trail networks. So it kind of takes advantage of the National park whislt at the same time being incongrous with it.
The other irony here is that the indians surely had all of these same arguments about the US feds. Its just the table are turned on who is getting the $$ and the benefits.
I agree that there will still be something worth seeing, but at the cost of a naturally beautiful place being made less. Personally, I am glad that some places exist in this world that I cannot get to without significant effort, and I don't want to change that. Humans don't need easy access to every corner of the earth.
For a good perspective on this see Ken Burns' documentary series about the creation of the national parks. It will open your eyes to the constant battle the parks face from commercial enterprises, and explains why the parks are such a unique system that should be protected at all costs.
The Canyon is huge; about 250 miles long. There's room for some tourist friendly stuff there, especially if it gets people interested in geology and conservation. I feel like anytime there's a proposal to do anything of value there's always some, largely, neckbeardish outrage.
This all just sounds like overly political correct, and often corrupt, tribal politics. A cable-car ride would be a wonderful experience. If I was a kid I'd lose my mind on something like this.
>To Dave Nimkin of the National Parks Conservation Assn., the developments represent "profound and enormous threats to the park. It's a grim forecast."
Oh come on, lets not be hysterical. If these guys really cared that much, how about stopping all these asshole hikers and campers who drop garbage all over the place? It seems like the line in the sand drawn here is pretty arbitrary. Heck, there's a massive development right on the Canyon, called the Canyon Village. This area is not this pristine, untouched thing, its very much been developed in significant ways.
The gondola is certainly nifty, but the resort could be built a couple miles away from the rim without impacting the tourist friendly improvement. Build a couple miles away, have a dedicated road to the gondola facility at the rim. There are compromises to be had, but like you said it sounds like there isn't a lot of give and take, just outrage and corruption.
All I see on that page is some buildings at the rim of the canyon, similar to (if probably somewhat larger than) what's there now. Is that really what you're complaining about? It's tiny compared to the canyon.
Having lived both in Phoenix and Tucson, I can say for sure state politicians will be in no hurry to protect the Grand Canyon. Sen. McCain wanted to dig up the canyon for resources. The argument will be "job creation," and anyone that opposes this project is against jobs. Not that I agree with it, but AZ is a big red state that also taxes solar panels even though sunlight is cheap.
For better or worse, it's not an Arizona problem, but a problem on the sovereign Navajo nation land. There were major conflicts in the northeast over this kind of stuff before the gambling money got into the political process. Sadly the reservations intended for native Americans have become a easy way for foreign interests to skirt state regulations and freely obtain the necessary property (even if currently occupied) to do so.
Do you live in Arizona? Are you affected by this in any sense? Why shouldn't the people who live there have the say in it. It's jobs for them, it's their home. The Grand Canyon is thousands of feet deep and hundreds of miles long, it formed millions of years ago. It doesn't need to be "saved" from a tourist attraction that will be a blip on a tiny side of the canyon and an even smaller blip in the history of it. The Grand Canyon is not in any danger.
It's so frustrating to see people who come to places they're not from and protest in fights that they have no stake in, shouting their opinions, generally making everything worse and when the fight is over go on to the next place.
Well, there're plenty of people who frequent this National Park and live in the area who are against the building of this project. It just cheapens the whole place for a handful of jobs (think of the jobs!1). To you it may just be a "blip on a tiny side of the canyon," but to many of us who treasure the place as one of the few great places without giant monuments to human existence, it is an atrocity.
Where I live doesn't matter, as long as I live in the US, because it's a national park. The locals don't get a special stake to it so that they can trash it up as they see fit. Which is a strong argument for national parks in the first place.
As a regular visitor to the Grand Canyon, this saddens me, but fortunately the Grand Canyon is big, and even if this gets built, there are still plenty of places where you can visit the canyon and see next to no development, such as Toroweap:
Irrigating the southwest in the first place was a Big Government mistake. That's the real disaster here. The Grand Canyon is pretty, but it's just a big ravine. Damming up the Colorado so people in Tuscon can have grass lawns is the real crime.
I'm currently reading The Wilderness Warrior, the biography of Theodore Roosevelt who was instrumental not only in setting aside the Grand Canyon as a national park but also in saving millions of acres of forest through the West from wanton development. In that time, it was possible for a politician to have that kind of far reaching impact. Leaving aside whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, it's interesting that now we're likely subject to financial interests in whether this gets done and possibly a court decision. I doubt that any of our elected leaders could have much effect over what will eventually happen here. I think that's probably a failing of our political system.
I typically refrain from commenting on how heavy a page is because we're here for the content, not web design critiques. That said, page load for the "As a single page" version of the article generates 349 requests (prior to the ad beacon/analytics calls that are made periodically after loading the page). Those 349 requests pull down >11,000KB in >52 seconds. That's excessive to the tune of an order of magnitude (and really for the page load time, probably 2 orders of magnitude).
They should all be sent a copy of "A Pattern Language". In one of the most memorable patterns, Christopher Alexander writes (paraphrased), "Find the most lovely location on your plot of land. Then make sure you don't build on it! Instead build elsewhere so you can continue to enjoy that lovely location."
If Escalade has to be built, they should build it entirely underground with just a handful of few holes at the top and a couple at the bottom. Each room gets its own fixed camera projecting outside view to the room as well as remotely controlled camera drones for lazy visitors.
I agree that the park is beautiful, and perhaps development should consider better locations. However the Grand Canyon national park is huge. Something like 2000 square miles. Anyone claiming that there should be no development, or that this will 'ruin the grand canyon' is incorrect.
These projects are deeply frustrating because all the developers have to do is get them built once - they can essentially fail as many times as they need to in order to get their project built. If you oppose this kind of project, you have to succeed in your efforts over and over again. If you fail once, the wild nature of the place is lost.
We need to preserve wild places, and this is one of them.