The Ragged Mountain Redevelopment Association has worked hard over the past two and half years developing a master plan and raising money for the upgrade of the Camden Snow Bowl. In December 2010, the committee had to scrap the proposed lodge design since it was too large and well over budget. The design was also controversial and not well received by the general public.

Since that time, the RMRA has been developing a new and smaller lodge design for the Snow Bowl. They have requested community input as they move forward with the project. In April, a group of citizens and local architects spent a day on a charrette to help provide some images of a lodge design. These drawings have been passed along to the RMRA in hopes that some of these ideas can be incorporated into the new lodge design. It is important for the RMRA to engage the community through a public forum on the lodge design in order for them to get the support they will need to raise the necessary funds. We strongly encourage them to do so. This is an important municipal building that we all want to be proud of.

The following is a letter sent to the the Ragged Mountain Development Building Committee earlier this spring:

To: Don Gross Chairman – Building Committee

From: Friends of the Snow Bowl

cc: Community Members

We are enclosing our drawings and conceptual designs of the Snow Bowl Lodge for you to use as you wish. As you know, the designs were generated from a public charrette in April which included five local architects and other community members.

We do not expect your committee to use these designs per se but it is our hope that some of our ideas can be helpful and incorporated into your current plans. At the very least, we hope that some serious consideration will be given to these concepts. As a group we have been disappointed in the designs that have been presented to the public. The current plan your committee is now endorsing appears to be too expensive for the budget and certainly raises questions concerning the plan, massing and basic aesthetic appeal to the general public. It is unfortunate that after 2.5 years of hard work the project is still struggling with these fundamental issues.

Since you are seeking public input, we present this information to your committee which was a result of the community’s interest in the project. We hope that you will have a public meeting (well publicized) to discuss all of the design concepts.

We wish you all the best.

Rob Iserbyt, Justin Smith, John Hansen, David Dickey, Stephen Smith, Geoff James, Charlie Pearson, Hugh Stebbins, Gerald Weinand and Richard Remsen