Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Overdevelopment of ski resorts

profile picture
grilled_steeze
Posts: 422 - Karma: 1,448
This whole mount snow thing with the residential areas going in at Carinthia got me thinking about how there really aren't any mountains left that give you the real stripped down type of skiing that you got at Sun Valley in the 60's. I understand that it's the development of the sport, but it really sucks with huge companies like Peak Resorts and Vail nearly dominating the industry. Not saying they go without issue, but It'd be pretty nice if we got some more areas run by cooperatives like Mad River. An area with a detachable quad, a couple fixed grip lifts and some fast rope tows, a nice park, some decent off-piste terrain, in-bounds woods, good bar and lodge, etc. would be amazing. You could rent or lease off ski-in ski-out land with some 1500 square foot houses at an affordable rate for season long skiers or full time residents. The idea definitely needs some tweaks, but it would be a great way to give a mountain to true skiers that actually know what skiers like, not like Vail Resorts with their safety patrol and other bullshit.
POLL
Edit Poll
Votes:

Take care when editing a poll; Options should be similar to maintain vote integrity.

More options will be added automatically as you type. You must supply a question and at least two options. No HTML is allowed.

Jun 7 2016 6:14PM
21 5
profile picture
YoungWookiee
Posts: 685 - Karma: 412
Yea i heard vail bought stevens pass and now their passes are like double the price so fml
Jun 7 2016 6:25PM
0 2
profile picture
vailsux.com
Posts: 1769 - Karma: 440
I am in concurrence. Vail doth suck a most heinous rod.
Jun 7 2016 6:40PM
5 0
profile picture
Park_Ranger
Posts: 3825 - Karma: 8,635
When resorts don't make profits, they go out of business and then there is no where to ski. It's easier for resorts to make profits when backed by a large corporation. It may not be ideal, but the corporate influence enables resorts to grow.

Corporations enable resorts to have amazing parks, amazing snowmaking, amazing grooming, fast & comfortable lifts, viable ski patrol, etc.... A lot of the things that you take for granted on the Mountain are there because of the corporate backer.

I know of a number of resorts in the Midwest that entail what you described, and they struggle immensely.
Jun 7 2016 6:53PM
0 0
profile picture
grilled_steeze
Posts: 422 - Karma: 1,448
Park_RangerWhen resorts don't make profits, they go out of business and then there is no where to ski. It's easier for resorts to make profits when backed by a large corporation. It may not be ideal, but the corporate influence enables resorts to grow.

Corporations enable resorts to have amazing parks, amazing snowmaking, amazing grooming, fast & comfortable lifts, viable ski patrol, etc.... A lot of the things that you take for granted on the Mountain are there because of the corporate backer.

I know of a number of resorts in the Midwest that entail what you described, and they struggle immensely.


I get what you're saying. It's one of my main problems with this idea. The complicated thing with running a ski area is that its like a stone archway. If one block goes (in this case maintenance, patrol, ski school, etc.) the entire arch falls, and the ski area goes bankrupt.
Jun 7 2016 7:14PM
0 0
profile picture
kami
Posts: 555 - Karma: 4,401
I love Vail as a resort because of their myriad of sick runs but
8:00


https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/823153/Snapchat--A-Year-in-Review
Jun 7 2016 7:32PM
0 0
profile picture
treebeard
Posts: 3669 - Karma: 2,013
There are plenty of these mountains still around, you just don't hear about them for that exact reason. Marketing and tourism are why normal mountains became big-name mountains. The low-key areas have neither
Jun 7 2016 7:47PM
0 0
profile picture
treebeard
Posts: 3669 - Karma: 2,013
to add to that, there's nothing inherently great about Vail as a mountain. It's not steep and the terrain doesn't have a whole lot of variation. It's just big and had a shitload of money to get the name out to the casuals
Jun 7 2016 7:49PM
0 0
profile picture
a_burger
Posts: 5237 - Karma: 20,754
I really don't care about housing developments at the bottom of the hill, but it bothers me more though when mountains are starting to put them like halfway up the mtn in places where they could put more trails or tree skiing
Jun 7 2016 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
vailsux.com
Posts: 1769 - Karma: 440
Park_RangerWhen resorts don't make profits, they go out of business and then there is no where to ski. It's easier for resorts to make profits when backed by a large corporation. It may not be ideal, but the corporate influence enables resorts to grow.

Corporations enable resorts to have amazing parks, amazing snowmaking, amazing grooming, fast & comfortable lifts, viable ski patrol, etc.... A lot of the things that you take for granted on the Mountain are there because of the corporate backer.

I know of a number of resorts in the Midwest that entail what you described, and they struggle immensely.


Growth is good, but that doesn't mean you gotta ass ram people into resorts like a gad dang round up. Resort skiing has been doing fine in places where skiing is good for almost 100 years! and did it without corporate exploitation.
Jun 7 2016 11:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Rparr
Posts: 5581 - Karma: 45,858
Peak resorts can fuck right off. the son of the owner of peak resorts was placed as the gm of my home hill 4 or 5 years ago, and the quality of our parks has gone down the toilet so fast. However, they built a new lodge that looks like a cvs and I'm sure profits are up at the hill, so they don't care. nepotism at its finest.
Jun 8 2016 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
Park_Ranger
Posts: 3825 - Karma: 8,635
treebeardthere's nothing inherently great about Vail as a mountain. It's not steep and the terrain doesn't have a whole lot of variation.


As someone who grew up skiing 300 foot vertical drop ice rinks in the Midwest, I say fuck you.
Jun 8 2016 1:04AM
0 0
profile picture
250r
Posts: 2276 - Karma: 1,013
Park_RangerAs someone who grew up skiing 300 foot vertical drop ice rinks in the Midwest, I say fuck you.


thats a dumb argument. my home mountain was about the same size. vail sucks. if your going to move somewhere, move somewhere thats really really good, not just good.
Jun 8 2016 2:50AM
1 0
profile picture
kami
Posts: 555 - Karma: 4,401
250rthats a dumb argument. my home mountain was about the same size. vail sucks. if your going to move somewhere, move somewhere thats really really good, not just good.


Yah vail is good just can't compare to the likes of Revelstoke, Jackson Hole, etc.
Jun 8 2016 8:28AM
0 0
profile picture
sgg.23
Posts: 271 - Karma: 265
w_skierI really don't care about housing developments at the bottom of the hill, but it bothers me more though when mountains are starting to put them like halfway up the mtn in places where they could put more trails or tree skiing


This is the canyons side of pc, never really skies over there until last season and was so surprised by the amount of housing, it felt like they built a ski resort around some houses imo
Jun 8 2016 8:37AM
0 0
profile picture
KravtZ
Posts: 6637 - Karma: 2,629
RparrPeak resorts can fuck right off. the son of the owner of peak resorts was placed as the gm of my home hill 4 or 5 years ago, and the quality of our parks has gone down the toilet so fast. However, they built a new lodge that looks like a cvs and I'm sure profits are up at the hill, so they don't care. nepotism at its finest.


Thats business my friend. Park's don't generate $ at the majority of resorts and thats just a fact. If you owned a business I bet your views would change....business exist for the purpose of making $.
Jun 8 2016 8:53AM
0 0
profile picture
Park_Ranger
Posts: 3825 - Karma: 8,635
250rthats a dumb argument. my home mountain was about the same size. vail sucks. if your going to move somewhere, move somewhere thats really really good, not just good.


fuck you man, you sound so entitled and spoiled.

Vail just isn't good enough, eh? I understand that Vail might not be as steep as some other resorts and that it has a pretentious vibe... but give me a break dude. Let me reiterate; I grew up skiing on slopes that were covered in ice and had a 300 foot vertical drop. The first time I saw the back bowls at Vail I was absolutely blown away.

If I were moving or even going on a ski trip, Vail wouldn't be my first choice... probably wouldn't even be in my top 10. But I will never say that the skiing at Vail sucks.
Jun 8 2016 9:42AM
2 2
profile picture
Mr.noodle
Posts: 1361 - Karma: 4,651
First thing that came to mind was Mad River but you mentioned it, another mountain that none of you probably know about is hickory, only rope tows and no snowmaking. I'm not sure about groomers but I don't think they have any. They're also only open on the weekends. They had a really bad year last season because of the lack of snow and thier location in upstate ny
Jun 8 2016 10:03AM
0 0
profile picture
kami
Posts: 555 - Karma: 4,401
Park_Rangerfuck you man, you sound so entitled and spoiled.

Vail just isn't good enough, eh? I understand that Vail might not be as steep as some other resorts and that it has a pretentious vibe... but give me a break dude. Let me reiterate; I grew up skiing on slopes that were covered in ice and had a 300 foot vertical drop. The first time I saw the back bowls at Vail I was absolutely blown away.

If I were moving or even going on a ski trip, Vail wouldn't be my first choice... probably wouldn't even be in my top 10. But I will never say that the skiing at Vail sucks.


Yah the first time I took my friend from Virginia to Vail on a pow day, he was completely flabbergasted when we smoked a joint in the trees and literally was just rolling around in the pow and so stoked to being skiing that type of terrain. I grew up skiing 5 days a year in Cali but the only resorts he'd been to before were Seven Springs: 750 feet, Wintergreen: 1,003 feet, and Snowshoe: 1,500 feet.
Jun 8 2016 10:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Rparr
Posts: 5581 - Karma: 45,858
KravtZThats business my friend. Park's don't generate $ at the majority of resorts and thats just a fact. If you owned a business I bet your views would change....business exist for the purpose of making $.


I would generally agree with that, but this place is strange. It boasts a massive 200 ft vertical, and many years ago they installed back to back quad chairs to service the park because it saw so much action. That's better lift service than Breck, PC, all the "best parks", ect. The parks used to be their selling point since the vertical was garbage. But hey, props to the new guy if he can make 200 ft profitable while pulling the plugs on the parks. I ski elsewhere anyways
Jun 8 2016 10:50AM
1 0
profile picture
KravtZ
Posts: 6637 - Karma: 2,629
RparrI would generally agree with that, but this place is strange. It boasts a massive 200 ft vertical, and many years ago they installed back to back quad chairs to service the park because it saw so much action. That's better lift service than Breck, PC, all the "best parks", ect. The parks used to be their selling point since the vertical was garbage. But hey, props to the new guy if he can make 200 ft profitable while pulling the plugs on the parks. I ski elsewhere anyways


Oh I do agree with this though. By my house we have this garbage hill thats super small as well. Doesn't get very good traffic and is on the verge of going under for a while now. Only the HS ski teams really keep it afloat for the most part.

They won't put ANY money into their parks at all..and for years. They have some of the worst rails etc I have ever seen. Were about 3 hours south of southern VT and so many people have ski houses up there, etc. The resort has night skiing also. I just don't get it...so many people have told them to upgrade the park.

I wiould shred after work all the time if they had a decent set up and I know many many of the surrounding area's would go there.
Jun 8 2016 10:59AM
0 0
profile picture
snowpocalypse
Posts: 1036 - Karma: 3,525
If you're really interested in the topic and how development is actually hurting the ski industry vs growing it check out the book Downhill Slid by Hal Clifford.


Its a great book about the Urbanization of mountain towns and how corporations have changed the economic and viability of small mountain communities. Great read
Jun 8 2016 11:52AM
2 0
profile picture
grilled_steeze
Posts: 422 - Karma: 1,448
Mr.noodleFirst thing that came to mind was Mad River but you mentioned it, another mountain that none of you probably know about is hickory, only rope tows and no snowmaking. I'm not sure about groomers but I don't think they have any. They're also only open on the weekends. They had a really bad year last season because of the lack of snow and thier location in upstate ny


Hickory is my shit. Love that place. Really sad to see it closed all season but hopefully this winter is a little better. I live walking distance from west but i'd still rather go to hickory. I normally ski gore but hickory brings a break from the crowds with some really nice terrain.
Jun 8 2016 7:24PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiBum.
Posts: 3600 - Karma: 3,909
Lol at comparing peak and vail.

Okay, so there are 4 big names in ski area business. Powdr, vail, intawest, peak.

Inrawest and ASC (now belly up) started the "more then just a ski area" thing. They did this because there is way more money to be had then just selling lift tickets. Real estate, lodging, food, gear, etc is where the money is. So the ASC model got copied by others (except powdr which does ski only white their resorts unless they buy a resort with previous lodging). But it got copied well as none of these resorts are going to go under, except Peak which will default within 5 years.

If you don't like Disney land Walmart type skiing you're in luck! Because there are so many other resorts out there that are not big corporate village type deals! So go there!
Jun 8 2016 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
profa_212
Posts: 8921 - Karma: 36,104
Squaw is building a fucking Waterpark and that's got a ton of people pissed. Can't say I disagree with them. Lines are big enough without that bullshit.
Jun 9 2016 4:21AM
0 0
profile picture
jca
Posts: 4171 - Karma: 6,311
WH2O
Jun 9 2016 12:13PM
0 0
profile picture
treebeard
Posts: 3669 - Karma: 2,013
Park_RangerAs someone who grew up skiing 300 foot vertical drop ice rinks in the Midwest, I say fuck you.


i grew up in pennsylvania bud, that has nothing to do with the quality of a mountain
Jun 9 2016 7:48PM
0 0
profile picture
profa_212
Posts: 8921 - Karma: 36,104
Park_Rangerfuck you man, you sound so entitled and spoiled.

Vail just isn't good enough, eh? I understand that Vail might not be as steep as some other resorts and that it has a pretentious vibe... but give me a break dude. Let me reiterate; I grew up skiing on slopes that were covered in ice and had a 300 foot vertical drop. The first time I saw the back bowls at Vail I was absolutely blown away.

If I were moving or even going on a ski trip, Vail wouldn't be my first choice... probably wouldn't even be in my top 10. But I will never say that the skiing at Vail sucks.

I mean from what I've heard it does kinda suck. I'd rather lap a foot of snow back home in SD then wait 2 hour lift lines for cut up chunder. Plus the terrain to wait ratio just doesn't add up.

Is it better than ice rink? Yeah. Are there hundreds of better options out there? Yes. So yes...in comparison to other large scale resorts, even just those owned by vail...it does suck. You comparing it to ice rink makes about as much sense as comparing a marmot and a bear.
Jun 9 2016 8:29PM
0 0
profile picture
GayWolf420
Posts: 37427 - Karma: 120,632
I could give a fuck about a "true skiers" mtn because those days are long gone thanks to corporate america. What I do give a fuck about is the amount of development currently ongoing in places like Park City/Salt Lake Valley and how it truly does impact the climate and ultimately snowpack each year. Park City has soo many god damn people/buildings/homes/cars, etc. that its created an almost artificial-like high pressure bubble (combined with it being a rain shadow) which completely fucks them over. There's a reason why we only get 1-2 maaaybe 3 huge storms compared to yester years where Main Street was almost impassable due to the amount of snow.

This isn't an "anti-wealthy people" post either, but do we really need to build all these private communities/homes/condo complexes up on mountains? its taking a fucking toll and soon there won't be anymore ski trips for folks to go on because there wont be any fucking snow.
Jun 15 2016 2:52PM
1 0
profile picture
GayWolf420
Posts: 37427 - Karma: 120,632
DeebieSkeebiesI could give a fuck about a "true skiers" mtn because those days are long gone thanks to corporate america. What I do give a fuck about is the amount of development currently ongoing in places like Park City/Salt Lake Valley and how it truly does impact the climate and ultimately snowpack each year. Park City has soo many god damn people/buildings/homes/cars, etc. that its created an almost artificial-like high pressure bubble (combined with it being a rain shadow) which completely fucks them over. There's a reason why we only get 1-2 maaaybe 3 huge storms compared to yester years where Main Street was almost impassable due to the amount of snow.

This isn't an "anti-wealthy people" post either, but do we really need to build all these private communities/homes/condo complexes up on mountains? its taking a fucking toll and soon there won't be anymore ski trips for folks to go on because there wont be any fucking snow.


and I understand the current practices people partake in each day contribute to the overall deterioration of earth as well and Im not blind to that, but sooo many contributing factors play a role and building shit on mountains is certainly one of them I think.
Jun 15 2016 2:55PM
1 0
profile picture
casey_cope
Posts: 675 - Karma: 3,398
you want underdeveloped? go ski outside the resort. All the successful ski areas don't give a fuck about trying to have a "raw" vibe for the locals. They only care about bringing in vacationing families. And the families don't really care about a "raw" vibe. They want attractions for their kids and nice amenities and stuff. It sucks for locals but that's the way it is
Jun 15 2016 3:28PM
1 0
profile picture
hot.pocket
Posts: 4229 - Karma: 10,650
Park_RangerAs someone who grew up skiing 300 foot vertical drop ice rinks in the Midwest, I say fuck you.


Oh yeah well I grew up skiing 200 foot vertical drop swimming pools in the middle of Iraq, the first time I saw your 300 foot vertical ice rinks in the Midwest I was blown away like how could you call that crappy it's so god damn amazing there??

Point being, just because you grew up skiing on a crappy hill doesn't suddenly make Vail an amazing resort. People who have had the pleasure of growing up around great mountains (for example, Tahoe) view Vail as an average at best mountain, nothing amazing.

There's top tier shit aka Squaw and the like, then there's average mountains aka Vail, then there's 300 foot ice rink hills. Just because you're looking from the bottom doesn't make the middle amazing to everyone else so cool it with the 'fuck you's.
Jun 15 2016 3:39PM
0 0
profile picture
grilled_steeze
Posts: 422 - Karma: 1,448
Park_RangerAs someone who grew up skiing 300 foot vertical drop ice rinks in the Midwest, I say fuck you.


Its not really the vertical that makes a mountain great. You could have a resort with 5000 vertical and it could be shit. I've skied 100 vertical foot backyard hills with mostly leaves for cover, and i still had more fun than i had skiing at a shit place like stratton. what im getting at Just because vail is big doesn't make it an amazing place. Its always the vibe.
Jun 15 2016 9:17PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)