usvi-on-line
New lifeguard stands
-
Sumerwaters
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:49 pm
-
toes in the sand
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:21 pm
If as promised, they are pushed back into the vegetation line and painted to match the vegetation. AND if they are comfortable for the lifeguards I have no problem with them. I don't think that the camo netting is going to be necessary though. I will look for them on our next trip. We always pilgrimage to Trunk for at least one visit everytime we are on-island. I must say that I liked the old hand-made stands and have a number of pictures of us standing at the old stands. Perhaps 10 years from now I wouldn't mind finding one during a snorkel covered with fresh coral growth being used as sealife habitat somewhere off the shore in let's say Cinnamon Bay after having been blown off the shore by a tropical storm.
"got a drink in my hand and my toes in the sand"
-
California Girl
Comments like this make me wonder if anyone is thinking about the lifeguards and their EVERY DAY job in the sun! Everyone seems to be worried more about the fact that these new lifeguard stands will "ruin" their ONE WEEK on St. John, or their pictures from the lookout. C'mon people, give the guys who are there to save your life a break! A little comfort. What's your job like? Do you sit in the sun all day? It sounds great, but I'm sure it gets old like any other job. Old and HOT!Sumerwaters wrote:I guess that we will have to treasure our old pics of Trunk. I sure don't want a pic with that butt ugly thing in it. Shame on them. I was actually thinking of making a donation to the park but not if they spend money on stuff like that.
This is certainly not a valid reason, in my mind, to withhold a donation to the Park.
I think they should have just kept on "spending the money" to let the lifeguards take their breaks. I have never been on any beach with a "comfortable" lifeguard stand.
Unless the stand is extemely well camoflaged (sp?), the island will lose more money in terms of lost publicity and allure-- defacing a beach that is often mentioned as one of the most beautiful in the world. Little things add up, what is next?
Yes, Trunk isn't my favorite either, but a visit to Trunk Bay while on a cruise greatly increases the likelihood of returning to the island for a vacation.
Just another small move that diminishes the beauty of the island.
Unless the stand is extemely well camoflaged (sp?), the island will lose more money in terms of lost publicity and allure-- defacing a beach that is often mentioned as one of the most beautiful in the world. Little things add up, what is next?
Yes, Trunk isn't my favorite either, but a visit to Trunk Bay while on a cruise greatly increases the likelihood of returning to the island for a vacation.
Just another small move that diminishes the beauty of the island.
"Sponges grow in the ocean...I wonder how much deeper it would be if that didn't happen."
Maybe they could do something like this. I like it!
http://www.portraitsofhope.org/projects ... /index.php
http://www.portraitsofhope.org/projects ... /index.php
"Paradise...it's a state of mine"
-
Xislandgirl
- Posts: 4163
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:03 pm
- Location: Slightly left of center
I just don't see how it is diminishing the island or defacing a beach in any way.
These towers are on beaches in Hawaii and I bet that no one that visits there gets so fired up about them.
Sure, you might not like the look of it, but if you visit Trunk Bay on a cruise and decide that the lifeguard stand is just too much for you to look at, then I can almost guarantee that you will not like the island at all.
It is the only beach with a lifeguard on STJ, so it is not like you will show up at Maho to see one.
One beach, one (or 2, I am not sure) tower. Seems like something pretty tiny in the whole scheme of things.
My advice to those that don't like it is to not go to Trunk.
These towers are on beaches in Hawaii and I bet that no one that visits there gets so fired up about them.
Sure, you might not like the look of it, but if you visit Trunk Bay on a cruise and decide that the lifeguard stand is just too much for you to look at, then I can almost guarantee that you will not like the island at all.
It is the only beach with a lifeguard on STJ, so it is not like you will show up at Maho to see one.
One beach, one (or 2, I am not sure) tower. Seems like something pretty tiny in the whole scheme of things.
My advice to those that don't like it is to not go to Trunk.
Shoot, for all I know there may even be some new government regulations mandated by OSHA saying that the guards must be given a UV-safer work environment. I'm not against lifeguards being safe, though I'm not sure that you want to make them too comfortable. After all, lifeguards on STJ probably drink rum too, you know. Make 'em too comfy on a morning after the night before and they'll be nodding off.
Seriously though, I really would like to know how much each of these towers end up costing, including getting the money appropriated, the units themselves, shipping them, installing them, and painting them. Looking around I found different beaches that bought similar units ranging in price from $24K to over $50K, depending on features and installation. Some of the pricier ones were permanently installed on concrete moorings to keep them from getting blown away. Seems like a lot of cheese to me.
I'm willing to bet you that a few years back that the guard stations were just elevated wooden chairs. Then one day somebody made them very happy by suppling them with an umbrella. Then a while later they were really living large when they got thatched roof units.Now, they get freaky looking "War of the Worlds" robot looking clubhouses. Soon, there will be robo-lifeguards, there to save the cruise ship "yellow Jackets." If I'm still alive, I'll probably gripe about the government spending a couple of million each for those, too.
BROWN BAY LIFE GUARD STATION
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/12829989@N00/5943978354/" title="IMG_3204 by taterjoes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6029/594 ... 5ba5_b.jpg" width="1024" height="768" alt="IMG_3204"></a>[/b]
Seriously though, I really would like to know how much each of these towers end up costing, including getting the money appropriated, the units themselves, shipping them, installing them, and painting them. Looking around I found different beaches that bought similar units ranging in price from $24K to over $50K, depending on features and installation. Some of the pricier ones were permanently installed on concrete moorings to keep them from getting blown away. Seems like a lot of cheese to me.
I'm willing to bet you that a few years back that the guard stations were just elevated wooden chairs. Then one day somebody made them very happy by suppling them with an umbrella. Then a while later they were really living large when they got thatched roof units.Now, they get freaky looking "War of the Worlds" robot looking clubhouses. Soon, there will be robo-lifeguards, there to save the cruise ship "yellow Jackets." If I'm still alive, I'll probably gripe about the government spending a couple of million each for those, too.
BROWN BAY LIFE GUARD STATION
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/12829989@N00/5943978354/" title="IMG_3204 by taterjoes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6029/594 ... 5ba5_b.jpg" width="1024" height="768" alt="IMG_3204"></a>[/b]
When you find yourself in a hole.... quit digging.
For me the central issue is that it's a National Park. There's a whole different standard that should apply in the national parks. I wouldn't think twice about having these in Florida or California. If somebody wants to put one somewhere on St Thomas, that would be fine. In a National Park, structures should be in harmony with the environment. These things clash with the environment. They should reflect the location in the West Indies and these towers are totally unrelated to the West Indies. National Parks are quite special. I suspect that visitors are much less keenly aware of St John as National Park than visitors to Yosemite are. Visitors to Yellowstone are very aware that they're entering a national park. For some visitors, STJ is just one of many Caribbean islands and they treat it like such.
But it is a national park. It's our park. It is to be safeguarded and preserved for the generations to come. The parks are kind of like holy ground. Different rules apply. This is a much deeper issue than what lifeguards like. Values shouldn't be compromised to keep lifeguards happy. When the parks are being protected for perpetuity, the wishes of a couple of current employees aren't very significant. The traditional lifeguard stands seem to have worked pretty well for quite a long time. Most places still have them. The parks have been set aside. They should be protected and respected. They should be cared for thoughtfully. The harmony and integrity of the natural place should be maintained.
So is this really the best option they could have come up with? Seems to me that it might be one of the worst, or anyway one of the least thoughtful options. They're functional. They're fine for Florida or St Thomas, but putting them on STJ misses the meaning of national parks. If they actually needed some tower for some reason, it didn't have to be these. They could have done better.
I put up the poll because I was so struck by how many posters on the original thread didn't see anything at all objectionable to them. That surprised and fascinated me.
I was also surprised by the strong swell of concern and support for the lifeguards. I don't recall STJ lifeguards ever being mentioned before on this forum. I don't think anyone ever gave them a thought. Who are they? Are they park employees? How many are there?
Also, there seems to be an assumption that these towers are a response to the working conditions of the lifeguards. I can't find where the belief came from that the lifeguards have been unhappy or will do a better job now that they have these towers. I do see lifeguards sitting in old-style chairs at beaches on the east coast and they seem to be doing fine. They usually seem pretty happy. What's the actual upside of these towers?It's possible that these towers were the result of some decision by some D.C. bureaucrat. The manufacturer may be pretty pleased with the contract he got. The STJ lifeguards may have been perfectly happy with things as they were. They might like these towers less. We don't know. We don't know what the lifeguards think, or who decided to bring these towers, or if anyone considered other options that might have fit in more harmoniously. All we actually know is that expensive towers were brought to STJ for some unknown rationale. Someone posted that there must have been a reason to get them. Probably, but I'm sufficiently cynical about my government that I'm not sure that I'd think it was a very good reason.
I'm fairly sickened by a lot of the change and development on STJ, but most of that is on private land. This is in the national park. Different rules should apply.
But it is a national park. It's our park. It is to be safeguarded and preserved for the generations to come. The parks are kind of like holy ground. Different rules apply. This is a much deeper issue than what lifeguards like. Values shouldn't be compromised to keep lifeguards happy. When the parks are being protected for perpetuity, the wishes of a couple of current employees aren't very significant. The traditional lifeguard stands seem to have worked pretty well for quite a long time. Most places still have them. The parks have been set aside. They should be protected and respected. They should be cared for thoughtfully. The harmony and integrity of the natural place should be maintained.
So is this really the best option they could have come up with? Seems to me that it might be one of the worst, or anyway one of the least thoughtful options. They're functional. They're fine for Florida or St Thomas, but putting them on STJ misses the meaning of national parks. If they actually needed some tower for some reason, it didn't have to be these. They could have done better.
I put up the poll because I was so struck by how many posters on the original thread didn't see anything at all objectionable to them. That surprised and fascinated me.
I was also surprised by the strong swell of concern and support for the lifeguards. I don't recall STJ lifeguards ever being mentioned before on this forum. I don't think anyone ever gave them a thought. Who are they? Are they park employees? How many are there?
Also, there seems to be an assumption that these towers are a response to the working conditions of the lifeguards. I can't find where the belief came from that the lifeguards have been unhappy or will do a better job now that they have these towers. I do see lifeguards sitting in old-style chairs at beaches on the east coast and they seem to be doing fine. They usually seem pretty happy. What's the actual upside of these towers?It's possible that these towers were the result of some decision by some D.C. bureaucrat. The manufacturer may be pretty pleased with the contract he got. The STJ lifeguards may have been perfectly happy with things as they were. They might like these towers less. We don't know. We don't know what the lifeguards think, or who decided to bring these towers, or if anyone considered other options that might have fit in more harmoniously. All we actually know is that expensive towers were brought to STJ for some unknown rationale. Someone posted that there must have been a reason to get them. Probably, but I'm sufficiently cynical about my government that I'm not sure that I'd think it was a very good reason.
I'm fairly sickened by a lot of the change and development on STJ, but most of that is on private land. This is in the national park. Different rules should apply.
Gee, Lex, originally I voted that I didn't think that they were right for a national park, but after reading your last post,I think that I may want to change to the blow 'em up option! I also would tend to think that if they have them at Trunk Bay now, can Cinnamon Bay be far behind? With the thinking that, "Well, we already have them at Trunk Bay, so ..."
When you find yourself in a hole.... quit digging.
-
California Girl
I have to agree with you on the design choice, but what I'm seeing in a number of posts are people saying the stands will ruin their pictures or their view, and I think that's a selfish point of view. It's an unfortunate choice of design, but those lifeguards deserve better than they had, don't you think? I mean the old stands were quaint & picturesque, but how would you like to sit in one 8 hrs. a day/5 days a week (or whatever), and deal with stupid tourists all day long? They need to be able to shut it out and get some good shade and a place to lock up their belongings.Lex wrote:In a National Park, structures should be in harmony with the environment.... These things clash with the environment.
It's too bad the NPS didn't ask the Forum's opinion before making their purchase!
Well I'm here now and we were at Trunk a couple days ago. I can tell ya it didn't effect our enjoyment of the beach or the view at all. Walked by them and said hey babe look new lifegaurd stands. But if I see one more person walk on the coral I swear I may have to strangle someone. Now theres a problem we can all agree on.
-
toes in the sand
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:21 pm
Lex the renovations at Maho look real nice think you will be pleased when there done. Looks 100% better than the old falling down structure. Only problem is Maho is going to get busier I'm sure. Actually the whole island keeps getting busier, most people wev'e ever seen on the beaches. The east end is becoming our favorite place now.