Tahoe Fund tasked with defining next generation of visitors’ centers
By Kathryn Reed
What will the visitors’ centers of the future look like and will they even exist?
Those questions are expected to be answered by next summer after the Tahoe Fund delves into what might suit Lake Tahoe’s needs the best.
There are various centers around the basin from chamber operated entities to U.S. Forest Service run outlets to municipality led enterprises like Explore Tahoe in South Lake Tahoe.
Visitors’ centers have been losing their appeal because these days people are more likely to look up information on a smart phone or tablet. But they still have a role to play because the brick and mortar location usually has someone who can answer questions in a way that a Google search might not be as responsive, and they have other resources to disseminate. Plus, they are often at a central location people want to explore.
Explore Tahoe opened in 2007 as a collaborative effort between South Lake Tahoe, California Tahoe Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service and Tahoe Heritage Foundation. Photo/LTN
“The goal is to see what works best for Tahoe,” Patrick Wright, executive director of the California Tahoe Conservancy, told his board.
The board agreed to allocate $85,000 to the visitor information and environmental interpretation project. The nonprofit Tahoe Fund is putting in $10,000.
The idea has in large part morphed from Bonnie Turnbull’s idea of creating a discovery center on the South Shore. The South Lake Tahoe resident was at the CTC meeting last month and expressed her support for how things are evolving.
Jeff Marsolais, supervisor for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and non-voting member on the CTC board, welcomes the study, noting his agency will have a big stake in the outcome. He also expressed how expensive it is to maintain and operate visitors’ centers.
The staff report highlights how things got to this point: “… after an extensive series of discussions, the group concluded that they first needed a thorough assessment of the needs and desires of both residents and visitors for new or expanded facilities, and to explore alternative approaches to meeting those needs, given the enormous cost of building and maintaining educational and interpretive facilities.”
Wright pointed out how Tahoe is unique in that there is not one point of entry like most national parks. He said California State Parks is looking at creating mobile centers. There is also the option of pop up centers.
It will be up to the Tahoe Fund to reach consensus, if possible, on what is best for the basin. Initial planning will begin soon. Public workshops and vision planning are likely to occur in March. A design charrette and final report are expected in June.
Maybe make an App about Tahoe. It could have education bullet points, games, treasure hunts, etc… No overhead after it’s developed? and engaging for the next generation?
95% of my visits to Visitor Centers have been to use the restrooms. I’ll consider using an App but I’m not sure that’s going to go well.
An App is a great idea. It can tell you where to find restrooms, even when a visitor center is closed.
“It will be up to the Tahoe Fund to reach consensus, if possible, on what is best for the basin.” What are the Tahoe odds on THAT happening?
One way to disseminate information is by creating a radio station like the weather/emergency band but with tourist information. In a five minute loop, any tourist (or a local!) can tune into that station on a car stereo (or portable radio) and learn about points of interest and timely information about traffic and weather. It would require an investment of time and effort. And regular funding. Sort of like endless “studies” but with tangible results. It would have been helpful for everyone to have a system of regular updates during the Angora fire. A dedicated AM system would be a win-win for tourist and locals alike.
“Visitors’ centers have been losing their appeal because these days people are more likely to look up information on a smart phone or tablet”
Is this just an assumed statement or are there visitor center data to support this statement? And what types of centers are we talking about – my guess is chambers of commerce may have taken a hit since (1) they are the less professionally designed and (2) they focus on things like restaurants and hotels and that is the type of info that is most readily gotten on line since it is associated with also being able to get perceived price specials.
Park visitation decreased during the recent recession, but has rebounded and some parks have even set attendance records this year, so I am not inclined to think visitor centers there have “lost their appeal.”
Also, people were quoted as saying a lot of other questionable things in the article such as Tahoe, unlike many national parks has more than one entrance – well, most of the larger national parks related to nature (vs historical sites) have multiple entrances ….can we say Yellowstone, Yosemite, Rocky Mtn NP, Lassen, etc.
and statements by agency people such as:
“how expensive it is to maintain and operate visitors’ centers”
the “enormous cost of building and maintaining educational and interpretive facilities.”
sound like straw-man arguments – it’s expensive to build and maintain anything these days (and probably any time after the abolition of slavery!). To suggest that building and maintaining an educational facility is more expensive than building a new administrative office (hello Forest Service!) or a road, or the true cost of allowing certain types of mining on public land is just false – what I hear is it costs money and I don’t think the object of the cost is worth it – after all it’s only for education and the last thing we would want to do is spend money on public education that could go somewhere else where it’s more clear who benefits.