Burbank given the boot
Privatisation has not worked - time for a rethink?
Mt Buffalo Chalet to re-open?
(Don’t hold your breath)
I have to admit to being somewhat sceptical about the prospect of the historic (and deteriorating) Mt Buffalo Chalet being re-opened anytime soon.
Despite news reports quoting Premier John Brumby as saying the Government has “decided to end negotiations” with the current lessee, Burbank Property Group, and is “actively looking for a new operator”, the fact is the building needs significant upgrades and, even then, without huge infrastructures such as electricity & sewerage being put in place on the mountain, how would a new – PRIVATE - operator make it any more viable than the 3 previous (failed) private operators did?
It’s all very well for Mr Brumby to say, “you will see in the not too distant future an alternative operator named and appointed and that will be a good news story for the region,” but I reckon there’s a twist in this two-year plus saga that will see it remained closed for a considerable time yet.
As I’ve previously written (HERE), I think the best and most expedient solution would be:
- The Government takes it back over.
- The Government then spends a couple of $million restoring the facade, gardens, etc.
- The Government then lets it out to a local not-for-profit ‘Mt Buffalo Preservation Group’ (Inc.), who are charged with operating it and keeping up the maintenance.
- The group only opens it up for (paid) guided tours but also operates the Cafe and the bar areas (i.e. no accommodation)
- One of our ‘butt-kicking & Alpine Shire tourism award-winning’ tour operators starts organising daily bus trips up and down the mountain from Bright.
- The much talked about (but little acted-on) idea of a gondola running up the Gorge is finally looked into … but seriously looked into!
These steps would see the Chalet return to the iconic tourist attraction it has always been – maybe more so. And it’s all that’s really needed. The developers and failed operators, who only ever act in their own interests, should just be given the flick … forever.
Promoting 'Beautiful Bright'.
Click 
Let’s hope the old girl is reopened, not just for day visitors as you suggest, but also to provide accommodation.
I’m not sure a not-for-profit group would necessarily be a smart move. You’d have a committee running the show and I question whether such a body could successfully manage what is a large and complex project. They’d have to contend with managing staff, promotional costs, meeting red tape and maintaining the building. Not for profit is fine but there’d be a risk of going broke just the same.
What is not stated by Brumby is whether the new leasing deal includes fixing the water, power & sewerage problem and whether the Buffalo Lodge is to be rebuilt. If this is part of the deal – great! If it’s not, I don’t think anyone would take it on, even a not-for-profit committee. And frankly, given the cost of fixing the power, sewerage & water problems, I can’t see Brumby & Co. offering it to a committee who would never have a hope of generating a rate of return to meet even a fraction of the costs.
I don’t know if you’ve ever stayed at the chalet Ray, but it is a special experience! Finding the right mix of accommodation product will be the key. Burbank failed largely because their product was over-priced (up to $200/night) and they had enormous overheads ($50k + per month for diesel), the previous tenant never had a coherent business plan and was a lousy promoter, whilst Dean Belle, who ran it some ten years ago left largely because of the mounting operating costs but while he as there he made a success of it.
Throw in your other ideas such a dedicated day trips for Bright-based visitors, plus of course the gondola, and the region will have something worthwhile to attract more tourists.
As a final (non-cynical) comment, I hope your suggestion about no accommodation is not a ploy to protect Bright’s market share.
It’s not a “large & complex” operation, Noel, if it is NOT providing accommodation. And it wouldn’t be hard for the NFP group to break even, either.
Why would the NFP group need new sewerage & electricity infrastructure? If that’s put in place it opens up the prospect for further development up there – like Burbank wanted. And we don’t want another mountain top resort, thank you. It’s not needed.
What is needed though, is to get it open & functioning, and soon. And I earnestly believe my suggestion is the best way to do that and, furthermore, it’s in the best interests of the surrounding towns of Myrtleford, Porepunkah & Bright.
No, my suggestion about “no accommodation” at Mt Buffalo is not a “ploy”. It’s just common sense. What it presently offers is out-of-date and the only time it’s been successful was when it was owned & operated by Vic Rail who had a captured market in their own staff and who offered them very cheap deals.
Those days are gone. You can’t turn back the clock and, unless it’s substantially pulled down and modernised (which is what we don’t want), it will never be a viable accommodation centre again.
And that’s fine – just preserve it and use it as a day-trip attraction. What’s wrong with that?
1. Why would the NFP group need new sewerage & electricity infrastructure?
Put simply, it would still cost a lot of money to generate power via the generator. Sewerage is still an issue as I’m assuming it needs to be refurbished. Water is the key though. Without a reliable supply and given the likelihood of continuing drought, I’d have a concern about being able to supply water for fire-fighting purposes.
2. And we don’t want another mountain top resort, thank you. It’s not needed.
Why not?
3. You can’t turn back the clock and, unless it’s substantially pulled down and modernised (which is what we don’t want), it will never be a viable accommodation centre again.
Again, what is wrong with a revamp provided the heritage characteristics are maintained? Take a look at the old buildings in Melbourne which are going through that process, be it for accommodation or whatever.
1. They can run it on the existing sewerage & electricity, surely. In the short-term at least. As for water, well that’s where it comes from. As for firefighting on Buffalo, they don’t use a lot of water – I haven’t heard that one put forward before … anywhere.
2. Two reasons. (A) The environment (B) It’s more beneficial to the wider region to encourage off-mountain development.
3. The surveys have been done, Noel, and the building needs substantial demolition to bring it up to scratch, accommodation-wise.
yes i hope it opens again. have stayed there a few times and visited many over a long period. the first time was back when i think the vic railways had it 1969. it was well run and an enjoyable experience, good meals. a bit like being on an ocean liner but on land!
there was an older man who had worked there for years and took guests on guided walks of the surronding countryside.
so it really could be used all year round.
another place i liked was in warburton a sort of health resort i think it was run by seven day adventists?? it was adjacent to a hospital. it offered good food, massage. health related lectures etc. and guided walks etc, in beautiful surrondings.
all inclusive prices with the accommodation, various packages.
probably ahead of its time re all the fancy spas they have these days that are often very overpriced,
i do not know what became of it. the buildings are still there like the chalet but look abandoned. such a waste.
it is a pity that these places close. they bring business to the areas around as well as being good in themselves.
regards
1. The existing water supply is in tanks. Ergo, limited capacity. My guess is that Lake Catani is the best source for water for future development. Despite your comment, fire fighting does use a lot of water and this was an issue in 2003 & 2006 on the mountain.
2. The environment? The building exists now whether it is kept as is or modernised. As for limiting development to off-mountain locations, you have yet to explain why. I know your strong feelings about Hotham & Falls Creek, but I put it to you that Mt Buffalo is not in the same league and never will be. Maybe if the new lessee obtained approval to add new structures in an area currently outside the chalet boundary, we’d all probably object.
3. All I’m arguing for is the continued operation of an existing asset. I put it to you that the chalet can be altered to meet both heritage and modern building practices.
Thanks Wendy. The ‘guided walks’ are still being conducted (by the Park Rangers) and they’re very popular, but I don’t think the Chalet’s existing accommodation can be upgraded without substantially destroying the building.
What’s lacking up there is a reason for what I’d call ‘everyday tourists (i.e. those not looking for hiking experiences and/or the older visitor in a bus) to make the journey up the ‘hill’.
BUT, by re-opening it just for day visits, as I’ve suggested, it would provide that reason and maybe even motivation for someone down here, who takes tours to remote places in an ex-Army vehicle, to get a real bus and ‘cash in’. Or for someone else to do it.
That way it encourages more visitors to the established towns like Bright. It makes for an added attraction.
Importantly, that sort of development would also help to preserve the historic building AND the environment of the park.
1. Water is an issue everywhere. So why create more demand for it up there by reinstating accommodation? It would be very costly to pump it up.
2. Noel, if the Govt connects Buffalo to the existing sewerage & electricity infrastructures down below it’s also an enormous cost. And it will take a long time to complete it. The problem has been that you cannot justify all that infrastructure expense just for the Chalet. If you put those services in it opens the door for more development up there – that’s the concern.
As for why it’s better to encourage off-mountain development, the answer is simple. That’s where the population resides and that’s where the most benefit to the communities would be derived.
3. I’m arguing for the same thing, but in a different manner to the proven & failed past performances, and at least cost … and in the quickest time frame. YOU’D need to prove that assertion though, Noel. My understanding is that that the accommodation wings are stuffed and to bring them up to standard requires pulling out walls, floors, ceilings, etc. And what you’d end up with is a tacky replica. And even then, no guarantee of success.
You seem to forget that a resort developer will effectively close the Chalet off to the general public and keep it very exclusive & expensive, thereby limiting the building’s general appeal and regional benefit.
1. I suggested Lake Catani as the water source.
2. Let’s think laterally here! Build the gondola and lay the sewage pipe & power lines at the same time.
3. Umm, we’re not talking about the local communities. We’re talking about attracting new & more visitors to the region with the accompanying spin-offs for the supply of services AND employment!.
4. The accommodation wings are not “stuffed”, just old-fashioned but not beyond refurbishment. One of the costs Burbank could not swallow was the requirement to link the smoke alarms in each room to the mains supply. That was the final straw as far as they were concerned as it came on top of all their other costs.
5. I question your last assertion about exclusivity. What benefit would it be to bar the general public, especially if people came up in droves on the gondola? I doubt very much if the Mt Buffalo Chalet is likely to become another Mirage Resort or some other swanky attraction for the ‘white shoe’ brigade!
It’s been fairly well covered in the media – the Government put together several options to offer to a developer, all upgrading power, sewerage and water supplies. It accepted that all three needed to be upgraded, particularly if Buffalo is to be a long term proposition.
There needed to be a number of options, because different accomodation standards/numbers require different solutions.
How much money the government was going to put in was going to be determined by the length of the lease.
The best scenario for power appeared to be connecting to the grid, via a cable along and under the roadside.
My recollection is that it was going to be a lot cheaper than anyone expected.
I was also fond of the idea of only opening the Chalet to day trippers, very much the scenario Ray’s putting forward. I was told at the time that the building has reached a stage where even that would be too risky. It needs a thorough overhaul – remember, it was only built originally as a short term structure.
My information all along has been that the Government is committed to reopening the Chalet. I was also told that there are developers keen to get on board. However, the lease with Burbank could not be broken unless there were clear grounds for doing so, or Burbank walked away.
Oh, and Buffalo has its own water supply, a dam further up the mountain – so limited pumping. However, at present it runs down an open creek bed, which creates obvious contamination issues. It needs to be piped to meet present standards.
Electricity is a problem because of its generation – a generator is either on or off, so it’s difficult to ‘save’ on power. This is why connection to the grid is (in the long run) a cheaper option.
Zuvele, thanks for that. I’m concerned with what a “developer” (as you suggest) might want to do with it. I wouldn’t oppose ‘some development’ on adjoining land but I’d like it limited to say, about 200 rooms. I’d also want to see that building preserved. I think you’ll find the announcement (when it’s eventually made) might be rather controversial.
Noel, we keep adding more points here. Oh well:
1. That’s basically status quo then. Fine.
2. The gondola would be private investment, not public, and would cost $20-$30 million. It would run up the Gorge but I don’t think you’d run the power & the sewerage up with it.
3. There’d be far more ‘spin-offs’ & employment if you, say, built a 200 room resort off-mountain. Someone will do it one day. Meanwhile we can make the Chalet an attraction without going to that expense and without waiting so long.
4. See Zuvele’s comment. The building, particularly in the accommodation area, is rotting away. Burbank wanted to rebuild – in concrete.
5. Noel, that’s naive. Of course it would be made as upmarket & exclusive as possible. That’s been made clear by Burbank, who are in that sort of business in Qld. It’s five star plus & aimed at the top end. Any other developer will go that way too. That’s how it is.
The Government recognised, in all discussions I was involved in, that the Chalet is the Chalet – although it will need to be modernised and (probably) undergo substantial alterations, the end result should preserve the elements that people love.
I think the land envelope is pretty tight; it’s an enclave in the Park and they’ll be limited to that area.
The Govt dept dealing with this has runs on the board when it comes to revitalising heritage structures – Werribee Park and the St Kilda pier kiosk being examples.
St kilda Pier Kiosk burnt down, Zuvele, and what is there now is a replica! (sorry, I couldn’t resist saying that)
All very well, but I think I’ll wait & see what is put forward. I’ve got a feeling it won’t be too attractive to the average tourist and will take a long time to come about.
It depends on which market they decide to go for – it might be targetted at the ‘above average’ tourist.
After all, how many average tourists actually used the Chalet in the past? They would have used the cafe (although one of the past managers was definitely not catering for the family market – they didn’t sell icecreams!), MAY have had lunch or dinner in the dining room, but for most it was a scenic backdrop.
For the Chalet to attract the average tourist, it would need to go down market.
Oh, it’ll go up-market for sure, Zuvele, if a developer gets hold of it and gets permission to substantially alter/destroy it.
I’m not suggesting it should go down-market though. I’m suggesting it be used as a day-trip attraction only, in which case ordinary everyday tourists would be attracted to visit it, like they were before it was first privatised.
But if a private developer/operator takes it over (again) and uses it for accommodation it’ll be less of an attraction to the market at large and therefore less beneficial to tourism in this region.
Well, I thought I’d made it plain that there is no intention to substantially alter the Chalet, let alone destroy it.
We have lots of accomodation aimed at the ‘average’ market. We need more for the ‘above average’ – it’s very limited at the moment.
So, if the Chalet was done properly, it would cater for the daytrippers who want to use the cafe and perhaps get a meal as well as attracting an entirely different demographic to stay there.
It can be win-win, you know.
Hmm, let’s wait & see just who is this ‘new operator’ that Mr Brumby is talking about and what his/her (or the corporation’s) plans are. It’s just speculation until then.
I don’t think, though, that you can have it ‘both ways’. If the Chalet is to be upgraded to modern standards of accommodation – and if it is to be viable that way – then the only market it can aim for is the top end. And that would mean keeping it exclusive. The days of Mum, Dad, the kids and Grandma piling into the Manfield Cafe would not return with such a revitalisation.
I wouldn’t see that as ‘Win -Win’, Zuvele, I’d see it as a possible ‘win’ for the developer/operator (although no guarantee of success) and a possible ‘loss’ to the general public whose access to the historic building would most likely be denied (which is what we have now).
I’d also see that as a ‘loss’ to the surrounding tourist industry, as the Chalet would be operating as a micro industry on its own that provides no net benefit to the wider region.
I’d argue that the general public hardly ventured beyond the cafe, if that.
Certainly, I’d been visiting Buffalo for probably a decade before I even went in the door.
Most people go the lookout, feed the birds and perhaps take a photo of the building from the gate.
And Ray, of course an upmarket accomodation provider would provide benefits to the wider region. Firstly, those people have to get there and back, which is good for the local servos. Secondly, they have to be fed, which is good for local producers. Thirdly, staff have to be employed to look after them, which creates jobs….and (if I could be bothered) I could make the list a lot longer.
And local tourism would benefit because a large proportion of this high spending demographic would ‘do’ the local sites.
The benefits to the area would be a lot greater if my suggestion were adopted, Zuvele (in my ‘humble’ opinion). I don’t like to see historic, iconic & heritage listed buildings effectively given over to private hands.
Zuvele, I certainly would like to see the whole Chalet opened up for public viewing rather than it become exclusive. It wasn’t like you could just wander in before unless you were going to have a drink or buy a meal, but if it’s opened up to the general public they will certainly come in big numbers.
Have never suggested in any way that it become exclusive – of course it should be open to the public.
As for just wandering in – certainly you’ve been able to in the past. In fact, it was encouraged. People just don’t tend to do it.
Ray, realistically, the vast majority of our historic, iconic, heritage listed buildings are in private hands. There are rules about what the owners can/cannot do about them, and if they receive direct funding from Heritage Victoria, there are also rules which allow public access.
It’s not your suggestion I’m referring to, Zuvele. As I’ve explained, once it goes to a new developer the only way for it to go is ‘exclusive’ and the public won’t have the type of access they could under my suggestion.
Sure, a lot of heritage buildings are in private hands but that doesn’t mean the Chalet must follow suit. And it’s been tried 3 times already – and it failed.
From my perspective, as someone who knows the local tourist trade, the far better option is the one I’ve outlined in the original (and previous) post. Better for the entire region, and better for the general public.
Anyway, we’ve done this to death. Maybe we should agree to disagree.
“As for just wandering in – certainly you’ve been able to in the past. In fact, it was encouraged. People just don’t tend to do it.”
Zuvele, you are missing the point. Ray’s suggestion is for something different than we had before. People didn’t “wander in” so much before because it was an accommodation centre being run for the use and benefit of the guests. But if you remove the accommodation side of it and make it clear that it’s “open for tours” etc, then the people will “wander in” – and pay for it.
is zuvele wanting a return to council, a comeback? perhaps she can back mario in his electoral challenge? no she should back jan in despatching our lightweight yes man nino, our so called “mayor”! angus
Very good, Angus.