Why did Maplecroft fail as a B&B?

Elizabelle · Post by **Elizabelle** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:32 am

Whenever I finally make that long-awaited trip to Fall River, not only would I enjoy seeing & staying at the Lizzie Borden Bed & Breakfast, but I would also enjoy seeing & staying at Maplecroft as well.

I think that both homes are equally important, although one has a less gory history than the other!

Have any of you visited Maplecroft?

Did any of you stay there during its short stint as a B&B?

Do any of you have it on good authority why it didn't succeeed in the "Lizzie" business?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:40 pm

The failure or any small business is simple: a lack of paying customers.

I don't know what their costs were, or what they charged. The percentage of people who would want to stay there is very small.

Let's assume 500 people/couples in the country, and they all visit. That's about ten stays a week! What would the costs and profits be? It had no competition, did it?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:57 pm

Elizabelle, I think it was a combination of things. Partly health reasons and I don't think Mr. Dube was ever enthusiastic about the idea. No lack of people wanting to see the interior.

I've heard stories of some people on the tour of the house taking photos which he doesn't allow. Others even removing pieces of the siding as mementos.

Unlike 92 Second Street, Maplecroft is Mr. Dube's home. Few people that I know would allow strangers to roam the rooms of their home, much less stay the night. Might be another Lizzie in the group!

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:26 pm

It wasn't until Martha moved out of 92 Second Street that she and Ron Evans renovated the place and turned it into the B&B. She lived there for years before this, from a teen on I think.

Her grandparents owned the house before her.

At the time of the 1992 centennial of the crime the house was a private residence. People walked by but very few were ever allowed inside! It was turned into the B&B in 1996 wasn't it? I was there in 97 and I remember it was very soon before this that it was opened to the public.

Personally, I would also have to move out of a place before I turned it into a hotel or business.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:49 pm

There are two approaches to opening a B&B. One is from the perspective of a buisiness, and the other for the pure love of people.

I would have no problem living in the same house as my guests, many do. Most people I would think would be respectful of the B&B they are staying at as someone's home. B&B is not only somewhere you stay on the way to somewhere else, but at most times the only destination.

To have strangers as guests is a lost art, one that is probably practiced over in Europe more so than here.

As for siding and such things disappearing from the B&B Maplecroft, I would think that the crime was perpetrated by vandals rather than guests.

Small infractions would probably need to be obsorbed, expected, or taken into account as a negative to such a business. But very doubtful, I would think, that someone willing to pay 200+ a night will tear off a shingle on the way out. But all in all, unless you are a "People person" you have no business opening a B&B.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:57 pm

of course, i've never tried it. but i gather it takes a serious commitment to make a successful B&B. it can be done, obviously--but you have to have a practical arrangement and the capital to invest. the 2nd st house appears to do quite well, but they are very ambitious -- and like someone else mentioned, they don't actually live there. the current 2nd st owners have done major overhauls this past year but they don't have to live there. i can see how if dube is trying to half-way make a B&B and also live there -- you reach a point where you have to decide WHICH it actually is. anyway, it's a commitment issue; and i think maplecroft could be made to work, provided the owner has the money necessary to make money. i don't buy the notion that they are just not enough customers -- i think there are, but maplecroft has never been a truly functional B&B. i've often said that i don't know why stephen king, being a new englander, doesn't buy the thing for fun and hire people to run it, and drop in every now and then. but i realize he's never shown a serious interest in the case, as far as his writing goes.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:43 am

A live-in B&B might be more like "living at work" than "working at home".

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:19 am

Now that the only 2 other B&B's besides the Borden B&B have gone out of business, I'd think, even with no "Lizzie" history, that Maplecroft could make a go of it.

The only hotel/motel considered actually IN Fall River, The Best Western, is not a comfortable place.
To those of you who visited Fall River in the 1990's, the Best Western now is all downhill.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:33 am

I think alot of the maplecroft b&b failing is the fact that they allready have a b&b and the house on 92 street. And it's getting alot of attention. Probably taking the attention away from the malecroft b&b.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:44 am

Yes, very true, the Best Western, the only hotel in Fall River, is going down hill. But it has been going down hill since the day it was built. Never heard good things about it. Besides, who wants to stay at a hotel that nearly overlooks the city dump.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:26 pm

Fall River is not the sort of town that people flock to. It's two largest attractions are Battleship Cove and Lizzie Lore. Most people that come to Fall River do so as a day trip or a side trip from somewhere else, such as Newport R.I.

So a B&B would have a little chance to survive in Fall River. 92 Second street is an exception since it is the reason for coming to Fall River. To stay at the "Murder Scene" over night is a treat indeed.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:12 am

Probably didn't need to have two b&b's in the same town and fall river isn't all that big of a town.
Besides, the Borden House has all the attention.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:45 am

One of the things is that quite often only people who have a big interest in the case know about Maplecroft. People that go to 92 second street who don't know about Maplecroft find out about it there and many of them would like to stay at Maplecroft as well, if it was a B and B. That was the case with some of the guests that were at 92 second street when I was there. Some guests didn't know about Maplecroft until then, but they said that they would like to see it and stay there.

Many people that I mention the case to have heard of Lizzie Borden but they know very little about the story, except that they think that she was some crazy person that killed a bunch of people with an axe.

When I got back home from vacation and my sister in law heard that I stayed at the Lizzie Borden House, she asked me " Lizzie Borden, did they burn her at the stake of what did they do with her?" I was thinking, when do you think this happened anyway? As far as I know they quit burning people at the stake long before 1892.

I have wondered if Mr Dube was planning on living in the house he wanted to build where Lizzie's Carriage house is and then have Maplecroft as a B and B again.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:01 pm

I agree with Fargo, it makes sense that anyone interested enough in Lizzie to stay at 92 Second Street would probably stay at Maplecroft if the opportunity existed.