Skip to main content

Would you stay at this cool place?

As I've noted previously, I work as a writer in the hotel/lodging industry. (This blog, of course, is my side gig.)

I'm a hardcore history buff, so it comes as no surprise that the hotels I enjoy learning about the most are those that have stood the test of time.

One such historic property is the Beekman Arms and Delamater Inn, which is situated in the center of the Village of Rhinebeck in the Hudson Valley.

The Beekman Arms has operated continuously since -- get this -- 1766, melding colonial charm and character with modern conveniences.

In 1766, Arent Traphagen relocated his father's tavern to what is now Rhinebeck. The Bogardus Taven was made of sturdy timber and stone to protect against potential Indian attacks. 

The inn hosted notable revolutionaries including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Benedict Arnold. The 4th Regiment of the Continental Army drilled on the lawn and and the townspeople took refuge here when the British burned the state capital at Kingston, just across the Hudson River.

Sold to Asa Potter in 1802, the property was the hub of political and social life in the community. It was inside inn that rivals Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr exchanged insults on the road to their infamous duel. 

Years later, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who lived in nearby Hyde Park, began every one of his campaigns for governor and president from the front porch of the Beekman Arms. 

Today, the complex includes the Delamater Inn and Conference Center, a collection of seven buildings -- both old and new -- that is located one block north of the main inn. A rare example of American Gothic architecture, the Delamater was designed by Alexander Jackson Davis in 1844. 

A member of Historic Hotels of America, Beekman Arms and Delamater Inn exudes historic charm. 

Would you stay here if you were visiting the Hudson Valley? 

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do you have Isolophilia? Find out...

You're probably asking yourself, "What in the world does Isolophilia mean?" It sounds like it would be something negative, doesn't it?  After all, words that end in "philia" (e.g., pedophilia) tend to involve things we want nothing to do with. But Isolophilia isn't something all people deplore. In fact, introverts like me welcome it. Put simply, Isolophilia is defined as having a strong affinity for solitude. It describes a person who relishes being alone. While extroverts can only take so much solitude, we introverts find that it rejuvenates us. In order to recharge our batteries, we need to retreat to a quiet environment where we we're left alone to rest and/or gather our thoughts. Extroverts, on the other hand, become bored and drained when they're alone for a lengthy period of time. Social interaction is the fuel that drives them. So while an extrovert would probably do anything to avoid feelings of Isolophilia in most cases, an...
6 comments
Read more

No response from someone IS a response

Make no mistake about it: When you don't get a response from someone -- whether they fail to answer your texts or return your phone calls -- it is  still a response, and a powerful one at that. When a person fails to respond, it's a direct reflection of their interest -- or lack thereof -- in the relationship. Few things are more aggravating than having to hound a partner, friend, or relative for some sort of reply after we've reached out to them. Yes, we get busy from time to time, but that doesn't give anyone the right to leave the other person hanging. A terse text with something like "Been busy, will reach out soon" doesn't say much, but at least it shows some effort to bring the other person up to speed on why they've fallen off the radar. Failing to provide a response for weeks -- if not months -- communicates that you are just not a priority, and that you'll have to wait your turn to get this individual's attention. This is n...
6 comments
Read more

Women vs. Men: Who likes to backstab more?

Whether it's on TV or in the workplace, the general consensus seems to be that women gossip, backstab, and stir up more conflict than men do. But, as with every other topic, I thought it only fair to put this so-called stereotype under the microscope. If you watch reality shows like Celebrity Apprentice, you'll notice it's the women who spend far more time bickering. While the men do at times become embroiled in tit for tat, it's the women who are portrayed as meaner and more hostile. In the workplace, I have noticed that women seem to gossip far more than their male counterparts. I haven't really seen any cases where a person blatantly backstabs the other, but I have caught both men and women in little white lies. If it is true that women are generally more into backstabbing and gossiping than men, why is this the case? I believe that it isn't fair to make a blanket statement like "all women play these games while all men keep to themselves and pre...
1 comment
Read more