Look inside the new luxury 'treetop' hotels opening in Wisconsin Dells
Announced last summer, the Treetop Villas at Mirror Lake, a new resort in Wisconsin Dells, will officially open on June 2. Additionally, the Dawn Manor Restaurant, located next door, opens on May 23.
Both the restaurant and "treetop" hotel are new projects from Uphoff Resorts, and will be managed by St. Paul-based Morrissey Hospitality.
The "treetop" accommodations aren't full-on treehouses like the famous Tree Hotel in Sweden. They are, however, elevated and have trees running through the cabin designs in addition to an impressive view of the surrounding natural scenery, including Mirror Lake.
View the 21 images of this gallery on the original article
The Treetop Villas are a set of four luxury cabins, three of which have two bedrooms and a sleeper sofa that can house up to six guests. The fourth unit has four bedrooms and allows for up to 10 guests.
All four spaces include a kitchen, gas fireplace, and wardrobes with ski and snowboard equipment. Additionally, each rental has a deck with lounge seating, a fire pit, and a lake-facing hot tub.
'The Wisconsin Dells area is famous for having unique lodging options, so we strove to create a guest experience that truly stands out from the rest,' says Jason Ryan, senior architect and partner of ADCI, which designed the rooms. 'Each treehouse was meticulously placed to utilize the natural cliffs and preserve as many trees as possible, giving the guest the best views into the natural surroundings."
Rooms at the Treetop Villas, which are located at 413 S. Burritt Ave. in Baraboo, start at $250 per night in the two-bedroom accommodations and $1,250 per night in the larger one. While the address says Baraboo, it's just a five-minute drive to the heart of the waterparks in the Dells.
Nearby, the same groups have opened the Dawn Manor Restaurant, a relocated Victorian estate that overlooks the lake.
The three-story restaurant offers period-themed dining (and a gift shop, because this is the Dells). It was relocated from its original site a few miles away and reconstructed with seven themed spaces throughout the building.
Each dining room pays "respect to the various people who came to know and be a part of the history of the manor," the company says in an announcement.
That includes The 1855 Room on the main level, which pays homage to the year the home was built.
'I feel like I've played a small part in preserving history that would have otherwise been lost,' says Steve Uphoff, CEO of Uphoff Resorts. 'This has truly been a passion project, with every detail thoughtfully designed to honor the eras of the past. Creating this unique dining experience gives guests the chance to see, feel, taste and breathe in the history of this home for the first time and let the legacy live on.'
View the 18 images of this gallery on the original article
The menu was constructed by co-culinary director Jayson Pettit and executive chef and co-director Justin Daper. They've crafted a modern American menu that includes a beef and bacon meatloaf, prime rib, and a burger.
Meanwhile, the bar program was developed by the Minneapolis-founded Tattersall Distilling, which is now primarily based in River Falls, Wis. The menu mixes classic cocktails and signature drinks. It also features three custom spirits from Tattersall that are exclusively available at the Dawn Manor: Vanderpoel Gin, Straight Rye Whiskey, and, since this is Wisconsin, a bottled Brandy Old Fashioned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Women are getting wealthier — and they don't invest the same way as men
Women are becoming richer, and they're changing the face of wealth. According to a report by McKinsey published last month, women control about a third of all retail financial assets in the US and the European Union. By 2030, that proportion is expected to rise to between 40% to 45%, wrote Cristina Catania, global co-convener and European lead for the risk and resilience practice, and Jill Zucker, senior partner and co-leader of McKinsey's global growth transformation service line. The report is based on a survey of about 13,000 American and European investors, nearly half of whom were female financial decision makers. It found that between 2018 and 2023, global wealth rose by 43%, but jumped by 51% for women. Women's expanding control of assets is being driven by a combination of factors, including a continuing decline in marriage rates, the ongoing boost in women's average earnings, demographic trends like longer life expectancies, and a broad shift in attitudes about women managing their own finances. Risk doesn't equal reward As women become wealthier through investing, it's becoming clearer that they don't approach it the same way as men. "Women are much more risk-aware," Anna-Sophie Hartvigsen, cofounder of financial education and investment platform Female Invest, told Business Insider. "I would like to call it much more realistic in their own ability to invest." She said women are less likely than men to invest emotionally. "On average, men trade a lot more often than women because they believe they can beat the market or they read something in the news, and they get pumped up or afraid, and then they invest based on that," Hartvigsen said. Female investors, in her view, tend to be more calm, more realistic, and better at assessing risk. However, Katie Geery, an advisor at Rise Private Wealth Management, says being more cautious can also hold women back by leading them to miss out on opportunities to build wealth. "It is important to work with a trusted financial advisor who understands your risk tolerance and can walk you through making well-educated investment decisions based on your long-term goals," she told BI. Returns aren't everything The aims of investing also sometimes differ between men and women. "Women prefer to invest toward achieving specific goals rather than chasing the highest returns," said Avanti Shetye, financial planner at Wealthwyzr. Geery said female investors tend to be more focused on philanthropy and gifting. They often consider their values when buying stock and want their purchases to help make a better impact on the world. "Women often seek financial advisors who are empathetic and take the time to get to know them on a more personal level to gain a deeper understanding of their goals and values," she said. On Female Invest, Hartvigsen said the principles its members care about the most include climate, especially a firm's carbon footprint, and diversity in leadership, in terms of a board having a good gender balance. Start investing early For Shetye, it's important to start investing early. "Women tend to be primary caregivers for children or aging parents and often take unpaid time off," she said. "Not only that, women statistically live longer than men, which implies that women would need to invest as much as they can as early as possible so that their portfolios last them through retirement." Hartvigsen said long-term financial planning is vital: "When you do that, it doesn't matter what happens today." Both agree that this plan should be grounded in expert advice. "Working with a financial planner whose planning process is rooted in financial education can help provide comfort and security to stay consistent even in the roughest of markets," Shetye said. But she also believes that practice is more important than perfection. "You are never going to know everything there is to know about investing," Shetye said. "The key is consistency, and time will do the heavy lifting." Hartvigsen advises her clients to invest monthly on the same day and to diversify their investments. "If you do that, historically, it has been near impossible not to make money in the long run."
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
How Iran could retaliate after the U.S. strikes on its nuclear program
DUBAI — Iran has spent decades building multi-tiered military capabilities at home and across the region that were at least partly aimed at deterring the United States from attacking it. By entering Israel's war, the U.S. may have removed the last rationale for holding them in reserve. That could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies, or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon with what remains of Iran's disputed program after American strikes on three key sites. A decision to retaliate against the U.S. and its regional allies would give Iran a far larger target bank and one that is much closer than Israel, allowing it to potentially use its missiles and drones to greater effect. The U.S. and Israel have far superior capabilities, but those haven't always proved decisive in America's recent history of military interventions in the region. Ever since Israel started the war with a surprise bombardment of Iran's military and nuclear sites June 13, Iranian officials from the supreme leader on down have warned the U.S. to stay out, saying that direct American involvement would have dire consequences for the entire region. It should soon be clear whether those were merely threats or a grim forecast. Here's a look at what Iran's next move might be. The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20% of all oil traded globally passes, and at its narrowest point it is just 21 miles wide. Any disruption there could send oil prices soaring worldwide and hit American pocketbooks. Iran boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines that could potentially make the strait impassable, at least for a time. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea. The U.S., with its 5th Fleet stationed in nearby Bahrain, has long pledged to uphold freedom of navigation in the strait and would respond with far superior forces. But even a relatively brief battle could paralyze shipping traffic and spook investors, causing oil prices to spike and generating international pressure for a ceasefire. The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops stationed in the region, including at permanent bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — Arab Gulf countries just across the Persian Gulf from Iran — and much closer than Israel. Those bases have the same kinds of sophisticated air defenses as Israel's, but would have much less warning time before waves of missiles or swarms of armed drones. And even Israel, which is several hundred miles farther away, has been unable to stop all of the incoming fire. Iran could also choose to attack key oil and gas facilities in those countries with the goal of exacting a higher price for U.S. involvement in the war. A drone attack on two major oil sites in Saudi Arabia in 2019 — claimed by the Houthis but widely blamed on Iran — briefly cut the kingdom's oil production in half. Iran's so-called 'Axis of Resistance' — a network of militant groups across the Middle East — is a shadow of what it was before the war ignited by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel out of the Gaza Strip, but it still has some formidable capabilities. Israel's 20-month war in Gaza has severely diminished the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, and Israel decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah last fall, killing most of its top leadership and devastating much of southern Lebanon, making its involvement unlikely. But Iran could still call on the Houthis, who had threatened to resume their attacks in the Red Sea if the U.S. entered the war, and allied militias in Iraq. Both have drone and missile capabilities that would allow them to target the United States and its allies. Iran could also seek to respond through militant attacks farther afield, as it is widely accused of doing in the 1990s with an attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina that was blamed on Tehran and Hezbollah. It could be days or weeks before the full impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites is known. But experts have long warned that even joint U.S. and Israeli strikes would only delay Iran's ability to develop a weapon, not eliminate it. That's because Iran has dispersed its program across the country to several sites, including hardened, underground facilities. Iran would probably struggle to repair or reconstitute its nuclear program while Israeli and U.S. warplanes are circling overhead. But it could still decide to fully end its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon three years later, but it had the freedom to develop its program without punishing airstrikes. Iran contends that its program is peaceful, though it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA assess Iran hasn't had an organized military nuclear program since 2003. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons. Krauss and Gambrell write for the Associated Press.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Food and Drug Administration staff cuts may hinder US biomedical innovation
President Trump has rightly emphasized restoring America's economic and strategic independence — from reshoring pharmaceutical production to cutting regulatory red tape. But not all reforms are created equal. Recent restructuring efforts at the Food and Drug Administration may have been well-intentioned, but they risk undermining the very innovation and domestic capacity the president seeks to promote. In March, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping reorganization of the agency, which in part included the elimination of 3,500 full-time employees at the Food and Drug Administration — many of them senior scientific staff and experienced regulators who served as institutional pillars across drug review divisions. While we all support government efficiency and the secretary's efforts to create a gold-standard regulatory agency, the loss of this institutional memory risks hobbling the expedited pathways that small biotech firms rely on to deliver therapies for rare and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately, the impact of these cuts is not theoretical. The Wall Street Journal has reported that some biotech firms have had to delay or cancel clinical trials due to lack of timely Food and Drug Administration guidance. One California biotech firm facing unpredictable delays has even turned to European regulators to move forward with a clinical trial — effectively offshoring American capital, investment and jobs. Others have reported receiving conflicting and confusing feedback from inexperienced FDA staff or no response at all on time-sensitive requests. But such issues don't just affect companies; they hurt patients, too. Innovation in gene therapies, cancer immunotherapies, and treatments for rare diseases depend on regulatory clarity and speed. Without senior staff to help clarify agency positions, decisions are either delayed or driven by less-experienced personnel unfamiliar with long-standing scientific standards. It's no surprise then that over 200 biotech CEOs, patient advocates and investors — many of them strong supporters of FDA modernization — have expressed their concerns in a letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). As a former member of Congress who sat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the FDA, I have long supported targeted reforms to make the agency more nimble and responsive. But there is a fine line between streamlining operations and cutting the institutional capacity necessary to do the job. Removing experienced drug reviewers before an adequate backup plan can be put into place not only jeopardizes U.S. safety standards but also undermines our competitive edge. This matter is not merely a domestic problem; it's a global race. Since 2014, the number of biomedical drugs under development in China has grown twelvefold. Meanwhile, innovation in the U.S. has remained relatively flat. If trends continue, China could match or surpass the U.S. in biomedical innovation within the decade. We have seen this movie before — in semiconductors, in telecommunications, in clean energy. We cannot afford to let biotech go the same way. The Trump administration's tariff policy was designed to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to U.S. shores. But how can we expect capital to stay in the U.S. if our regulatory infrastructure cannot deliver? Delays and unpredictability at the FDA don't just slow down science — they push investors to look elsewhere. Even the user fee system — critical to funding timely drug reviews and a source of government revenue — has been impacted by the reduction in force. Staff who oversaw the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have been laid off, raising questions about whether the agency will even be able to continue to collect user fees and whether these government cuts will actually end up costing taxpayers in the long run. Of course, Kennedy has long been a vocal advocate for health reform. His Make America Healthy Again agenda's focus on combatting chronic diseases and enhancing nutritional standards deserves attention. His focus for such reform is where his background and passion can lead to meaningful improvements. But when it comes to regulating complex biologics and therapeutics, we must be careful about taking actions that could inadvertently stymie scientific progress. President Trump's vision for American self-reliance will only succeed if it's built on a foundation of regulatory competence and stability. Swift actions should therefore be taken to restore the FDA's core functions, rehire critical staff and unfreeze the hiring of roles essential to America's leadership in biomedical science. The stakes — for patients, for innovation and for national security — are simply too high to ignore. John T. Doolittle is a former member of Congress who served on the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
