The Appalachian Trail’s Legendary ‘Pizza Shelter’ Is Facing Demolition. This Hiking Group Hopes to Save It.

The 501 and Eckville shelters’ days could be numbered. Earlier this year, the National Park Service announced plans to demolish the two well-known Pennsylvanian Appalachian Trail shelters by the end of 2026 or early 2027 as part of a push to dispose of “nonconforming infrastructure.” Now, the Blue Mountain Eagle Climbing Club (BMECC) is establishing a special committee to save the iconic AT pit stops.

The Eckville shelter (mile 1235) in Pennsylvania is known for its fully-enclosed design, which creates enhanced protection during inclement weather. Hikers often refer to the 501 shelter (mile 1196) as the “pizza shelter,” because its location allows users to order pizza directly to it. Both shelters feature unusual amenities like solar showers and even flush toilets at Eckville shelter.

While the NPS has owned the two properties since 1985, they’re both predominantly managed by local trail organizations. Many of the upgrades that the shelters have seen in recent years were made by BMECC. Each property also has a caretaker, who isn’t employed by the NPS.

Ann Simonelli, Director of Communications for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), explained that plans have been in place to demolish the shelters for several years for a few different reasons. The shelters are considered “nonconforming” structures since they’re both located close to motorized access points. They also “do not fall within modern NPS housing, volunteer, and visitor use policies,” said Simonelli.

One of the difficulties that the owners of the shelters face is liability for injuries that could result from disrepair of the buildings, Jim Barnett, President Pro Tem of BMECC told Backpacker. But the organization still hopes to forestall the demolitions. A direct sale between the NPS and local land managers isn’t possible due to federal regulations, and a “land swap” (which would involve trading one piece of property for another) is possible but likely unrealistic due to time constraints.

Instead, BMECC is looking to ”garner a grassroots effort from those who value the shelters to pressure the NPS to change their decision to demolish them and continue the relationship where we partner in keeping them viable,” said Barnett.

As of right now, both shelters are likely to be demolished sometime between the end of next year and the beginning of the following one. Nearby designated camping areas in the region are still slated to remain open.

Those who are in favor of saving the shelters not only point to the historical and cultural significance of the structures, but also the logistical challenges that would arise amidst the loss of the structures. Barnett explained that removing the 501 shelter from the Appalachian Trail would create a 19-mile gap between trail shelters, while the loss of Eckville shelter would create a 16.5-mile gap between shelters in rocky, aggressive terrain, leaving some hikers struggling to travel the extra distance.

“The shelters provide good options for section and thru-hikers,” Barnett said. “They offer protection from bad weather and amenities camping areas don’t. Protection from severe storms—which seem to be worsening because of climate change—cannot be overstated.  Additionally, caretakers give great advice and receive valuable information about trail conditions, safety issues and other hiker concerns.”

Some local community members support the use of structures like the 501 and Eckville shelters because they help to concentrate human impact into a relatively small area to support Leave No Trace practices, in addition to creating a social hub and a safe haven for those facing foul weather.

Mick Charowsky, the Eckville shelter’s current caretaker, “has been there for over 30 years and plans to stay as long as viable,” said Barnett.

“Because [the shelters] are close to the road, caretakers living at nearby caretaker residences are a necessity to assure that these are only for backpackers and not mistreated by other parties curious about the premises,” he added. “We were the only trail-maintaining club that opted to take this responsibility when the NPS wanted to remove properties. There is a cost for the club, caretakers, and NPS to maintain healthy shelters and caretaker residences.” As long as the NPS keeps the shelters open, Barnett said, the BMECC plans to continue running them.

Even so, not everyone in the BMECC committee agrees that fighting to save the shelters is worth the organization’s effort.

“Some feel that our club resources could be used better elsewhere,” Barnett said. “Others feel that the benefit for section and thru-hikers is why we exist and are worth the cost.”

For hikers who found a home for the night at one of the shelters, their imminent closure has struck a blow. On a Facebook post announcing the news earlier this year, past thru-hikers commented that the water at the 501 shelter was a “lifesaver,” and that demolishing the structures would be a “shame for the hiking community.”