Back in November, Lazy Lightning covered the $90,000 treehouse cabin plan which County Commissioners turned down as too expensive. They sent the County staff members back to the drawing board to come up with cabins which were more reasonably priced and the public recently got a look at those new plans which were eventually approved.
These new cabins will be so much more appropriately priced at $56,000 but will feature a simplistic, box-style design, and will be built by high school students at DCTC before being moved to the site by home movers. While certainly less money than $90,000, the cost of many homes in Dakota County, are $56,000 cabins built by high schoolers really an acceptable expenditure in 2013?
From the article:
“I like the idea of having this education for students in the county,” said Board Chair Nancy Schouweiler. “Right there you have some potential [cabin] users.”
The 327-square-foot cabins will be insulated for four-season use but will not look like the traditional Minnesota woods getaway cabins. Designed by HGA Architects of Minneapolis, these cabins look like a plain rectangular box.
Commissioner Kathleen Gaylord questioned the plain design, comparing it to a “small garage or trailer.” She wondered if it could have a more interesting roof line or exterior finish. Gerlach said he likes the traditional look of the camper cabins in state parks.
But HGA architect Steven Dwyer defended the simple design, saying the cabins will not look like they were built by Huck Finn. The plain exterior will blend in with the trees, he said. But inside, a front window — a wall of glass — will make the cabins unique, Dwyer said.
While cabins may be something that will bring in visitors to the park and should be a part of the planning, some may continue to question spending just over a half a million dollars on nine cabins built by high-schoolers. For a county which continually prides itself in its low tax rate and smart spending, it’s fairly clear some of their choices still need work.
What do you think about this idea? Do you think the $90,000 cabins being reduced to $56,000 by utilizing high-schoolers to build them makes the plan any better or do you think it just makes it worse? Do you think that by utilizing the high-schoolers the staff didn’t have to do as much work to get what they wanted instead of going back to the drawing board to really come up with a viable solution to the problem? With many lakeshore cabins (including land) going for $100,000 in Minnesota, are you still surprised at the high cost? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:08 am
If the rent for these will pay them off, as the article suggests, I see nothing wrong with this. I appreciate that the county found a more cost effective solution. Full disclosure, my wife works at DCTC. I have seen houses being built year after year at the college. It provides the students with real world application and provides a service to the county.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:21 am
You can get the materials to build a 24′ x 24′ x 8′ 2-Car with Log Siding Garage
(Model Number: 1950466 | Menards® SKU: 1950466) at Menards for $7,308.01. http://www.menards.com/main/project-center/garages/24x24x8-2-car-with-log-siding/p-1491178-c-9891.htm Have the same students build it for free and modify it to be a cabin for quite a bit less than $54K.
Yeah it’s a garage, but it sounds like the new design of a basic rectangular cabin isn’t too different from a garage design.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:44 am
Let’s be clear on this Ryan. The “article suggests” that the County EXPECTS the rent will pay for the cost of OPERATING them.
NOT building them or “paying them off” as you say…..OPERATING THEM.
Here’s the reality of the situation according to the article:
- $5.5 MILLION DOLLARS just to get the “park” up and running. That’s because our County Commissioners define a “park” as “roads, 8 miles of trails, electricity, bathrooms, running water, shelters, large picnic shelter, an overlook, and picnic grounds.”
- The plan is for the park to have upwards of 23 cabins. That’s an ADDITIONAL cost of $1,120,000 (20 x $56,000).
- They don’t mention how much they had to pay HGA architects to design these things. I can’t imagine it was done pro bono.
Nearly $7 million dollars for a park-that-isn’t-a-park and “camping”. (And people like “cripes” can’t fathom why I think our local government/public officials are horrible.)
This idea sucked from the start and continues to suck. Period.
January 23rd, 2013 at 2:48 pm
MSPD, without a road, trails, electricity, bathrooms, water, shelters, and picnic areas, all you have are woods.
January 23rd, 2013 at 2:58 pm
This is completely ridiculous!! I also wonder what the architects were paid! Sounds like some politically correct design that is way too modern for the average consumer. Seriously – we shouldn’t build them until we know how they will be paid for. Who operates these budgets. Seems like it is easy to spend other people’s money. If it is so great – maybe they should become personal investors in the idea.
January 23rd, 2013 at 3:01 pm
A fucking travesty.
January 23rd, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Oh the horror! Imagine….(gasp)….people….shudder)…..CAMPING…..in…..WOODS……
(insert sound of me fainting and hitting the floor)
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Camping? I thought we were talking about roughing it in a cabin!