So is anyone here ever excited to get more terrain at a ski area

[PNWbrit]

Let me go get a book on self help and read it to AR.

[Shredhead]

Highland Bowl was a great expansion of expert terrain in a closed area, that increased some sick side country access, that wasn't legally accessible before!

[Bromontana]

I know, but a little intended misunderstanding can be a good spice.

Anyway, I really do think the MagNion collectif doesn't necessarily hold a "no expansion" position ,despite the airtime the poorly planned and transparent current UT Interconnect generates. BRUTAH et al make good points when limited to that particular issue and the Cottonwoods in general.

Yeah I got the tone of your response after reading it twice. Being slow can be a b*tch.

[brutah]

Highland Bowl was a great expansion of expert terrain in a closed area, that increased some sick side country access, that wasn't legally accessible before!

YES!! the highland bowl expansion was an instance of actually expanding terrain with skiing in mind. I agree that this expansion was a good thing plus it wasn't coupled with real estate development. the asspen ski corp seems to get "it"

[Steven S. Dallas]

Dilution is the solution to congestion and hopefully it can drive expansion of the sport.

Which leads to more congestion! Hurrah!

[brutah]

But I think that a tram down the W. side of Snowbasin into Ogden would be awesome not only for the terrain, but also for the town's small businesses and reducing the environmental impact of folks driving around the backside of Mt. Ogden. So right there in the Wasatch, my thoughts are context dependent.

i think all resort expansion has to be context dependent. no, two expansions are the same obviously because no two mountains are the same.

and as someone who was born in albuquerque and learned to ski at sandia peaks, I think the ogden tram idea was and is great! A tram from ogden to snowbasin would actually have a positive environmental impact unlike skilink. too bad snowbasin ownership doesn't seem to want it nor do they have the financial backings like talisker to buy off every politician in the state to support it. further expansion in the central wasatch on the other hand, i'm against that.

[hutash]

I see this excuse used all the time. While this statement was true 5-10 years ago, it really does not apply today. There just isnt that much condo construction anymore.

Again, it seems a selfish argument. You either as a local want to have less housing so your property values stay high, or just don't like how they look, or want the secret parking, or whatever. But environmental impact is not the end of the earth due to a couple buildings being built. If anything, over the lifetime of that building, it has less environmental impact than its given bed base commuting back and forth to the hill everyday.

I agree it is less of an issue today then it was, but if we ever get a strong economy this issue will rise again. I also agree it is less of an issue at many hills, especially the small ones, but it is still problematic.

If locals were the ones to own and live in these houses/condos I would agree they would have less impact then commuters, but for the most part they aren't. Ten bedroom "cabins" occupied for a handful of days by some Dallas dentist is not environmentally friendly.

For the record, I am not against expansion if done wisely and with input from all parties involved. development done wisely can be win/win, which rarely happens if one side gets to dictate most of the terms.

[pappag]

Ski lifts are so juvenile.... I'm holding out until we get a cable car to the top of Chaos Canyon.

[AdironRider]

I agree it is less of an issue today then it was, but if we ever get a strong economy this issue will rise again. I also agree it is less of an issue at many hills, especially the small ones, but it is still problematic.

If locals were the ones to own and live in these houses/condos I would agree they would have less impact then commuters, but for the most part they aren't. Ten bedroom "cabins" occupied for a handful of days by some Dallas dentist is not environmentally friendly.

For the record, I am not against expansion if done wisely and with input from all parties involved. development done wisely can be win/win, which rarely happens if one side gets to dictate most of the terms.

I hear you on ski country mansions, but there are only so many people who can afford those. I don't think they are really the problem. Thats the extreme upper end of ski condo/cabin ownership. 90% of this type of real estate are slope side condos ala Killington, Summit County etc for the weekend warrior types and week long vacationers. This is huge, especially on the East Coast. They could stay at a hotel off hill sure, but thats where the environmental impact of driving back and forth comes in.

I think that the local issue I mentioned earlier is more prevalent than you might suspect. I agree that the majority arent owned by locals, but local populations are still opposed to having more housing. That drives their current property values down. Look at the Jackson comp plan and tell me thats not an issue. Open space is primarily just code for don't build another Melody Ranch and drive my property value down. (I realize this is not 100% of the time, but the majority).

[Hugh Conway]

Well, then there's just the practical aspect of moving to the mountains and finding where you wanted to play getting covered with homes/condos. That couldn't be a factor at all.

[Todds]

I'm not a big fan of expansion if all it does is add beginner terrain attached to expensive slopeside realestate. I'm not totally against it because those real estate sales support/fund the resort.

At some point Crested Butte didn't have the North Face Poma lift. I'm guessing some people would have complained about it being built. I like it and happy about that expansion. Was that area patrolled or avi controlled before the poma?

[AdironRider]

Well, then there's just the practical aspect of moving to the mountains and finding where you wanted to play getting covered with homes/condos. That couldn't be a factor at all.

So we should exclude anyone else who wants to do the same thing? I can see this point, but I also realize our population isn't getting smaller.

[bodywhomper]

real estate development adjacent to ski mtns seems relevant to discussion in CA. Examples:
-kirkwood (ongoing)
-squaw valley (new development planned)
-northstar (can't remember status)
-bear valley (can't remember status)
-royal gorge/donner summit (recently defunct)
-june lakes/june mtn (recently defunct)
-china peak (this is a guess, but same dude as created the kirkwood master plan)
-dyer mtn (can't remember status but will probably become defunct)

[Buster Highmen]

i think all resort expansion has to be context dependent. no, two expansions are the same obviously because no two mountains are the same.

Yup. So the OPs claim has no merit.

and as someone who was born in albuquerque and learned to ski at sandia peaks, I think the ogden tram idea was and is great! A tram from ogden to snowbasin would actually have a positive environmental impact unlike skilink. too bad snowbasin ownership doesn't seem to want it nor do they have the financial backings like talisker to buy off every politician in the state to support it. further expansion in the central wasatch on the other hand, i'm against that.

Earl Holden is will eventually relinquish the reins and his son in law own Malins Basin, so we'll see what happens up there.

I do think that what folks in Ogden want is critical, but there's so many resources there already it seems it would be a healthy thing, especially if there were a street car running through Ogden that accessed the tram.

[claymond]

real estate development adjacent to ski mtns seems relevant to discussion in CA. Examples:
-kirkwood (ongoing)
-squaw valley (new development planned)
-northstar (can't remember status)
-bear valley (can't remember status)
-royal gorge/donner summit (recently defunct)
-june lakes/june mtn (recently defunct)
-china peak (this is a guess, but same dude as created the kirkwood master plan)
-dyer mtn (can't remember status but will probably become defunct)

Add in Homewood, if they are still planning on the whole master plan thing with condos on the slopes and all. That would not only hurt what is for now a great, fun hill, it would change the whole West Shore. And as far as China Peak goes, I am not aware of any big plans for development. They really could stand to open more terrain as the ski area boundaries are currently much farther out than what is feasible to access by lift. Though before that, it would be nice if they would open the terrain they have in a timely manner instead of say, leaving snow guns and the piping on the slopes before the first pow day of the year, so they get buried and the lift accessing steep terrain opens hours late while they get dug out.

[Hugh Conway]

So we should exclude anyone else who wants to do the same thing? I can see this point, but I also realize our population isn't getting smaller.

why not build up, not out? Other than everyone wants to turn the world into the never ending sprawl of SoCal.... and hate on SoCal at the same time.

I think Homewood's moving forward

[raisingarizona13]

Summit said it. Expansion just leads to newer side country.

I'll give you all one example where ski area expansion fucked things up and ultimately it was reversed.

Snowbasin - a few years ago they had the bright idea to expand their boundary to include a lot of bowls/cirques that sit above the ski lifts. These were/are only accessible via hike. What happened was that patrol ended up having to bomb the living shit out of them and they were basically turned to shit and not worth skiing. I think it must have lasted 2-3 seasons and then they were excluded from the boundary. They're back to OB and still able to ski now.

I think most expansion is cool especially if it's 'more difficult' terrain. We all know that most of that won't get skied anyway.

So there is uncontrolled avalanche terrain above the lifts that is open for hiking? That sounds weird to me, wouldn't that be a huge hazard and liability issue? Is hiking only allowed when patrol deems it appropriate like a lot of the areas in and around Alta?

[AdironRider]

why not build up, not out? Other than everyone wants to turn the world into the never ending sprawl of SoCal.... and hate on SoCal at the same time.

I think Homewood's moving forward

I could get behind that, although I think it wouldnt solve the apprehension.

[raisingarizona13]

So we should exclude anyone else who wants to do the same thing? I can see this point, but I also realize our population isn't getting smaller.

The population may still be growing but the percentage of people with wealth and the available wealth is much less and it's not ever going to come back to the same level as the baby boomer generation had experienced. There are already countless bankrupt gated communities that are sitting around like ghost towns all over the mountain west, why should we be wasting more valuable natural resources for this shit? This country is SO out of touch with the current condition of the rest of the world, do you have any idea where all of this shit comes from? There are people all over the world that are starving and suffering so we can have that second or even third owned home. I just can't believe the fuck everything me me me mentality anymore, I mean aren't the mountains teaching these people anything at all?

Well fuck it, as far as Summit County goes or the damn Wasatch as far as I'm concerned you might as well interconnect the whole fucking thing, those areas are so overrun with the human cancer at this point I think those two spots are good sacrifices for that sort of thing. Go Euro there and lets stop developing more giant mega resorts in other areas. Lets focus on the projects like MRA is working on and bring skiing back for the working man and his family. 100 dollar lift tickets? Does anyone on here buy that shit? If that was what it would take for me to go skiing every time then well.......I wouldn't be skiing. It's gotten out of hand.

[AdironRider]

Yup. So the OPs claim has no merit.


Earl Holden is will eventually relinquish the reins and his son in law own Malins Basin, so we'll see what happens up there.

I do think that what folks in Ogden want is critical, but there's so many resources there already it seems it would be a healthy thing, especially if there were a street car running through Ogden that accessed the tram.

Whatever your personal beef is with me, you need to get over it, I dont care. You should know this about me by now.

My question is about the general attitude in expansion threads. A twelve year old knows that each situation is different, but overall I would argue this board is pretty anti-development. This is a thread to discuss it.

[AdironRider]

The population may still be growing but the percentage of people with wealth and the available wealth is much less and it's not ever going to come back to the same level as the baby boomer generation had experienced. There are already countless bankrupt gated communities that are sitting around like ghost towns all over the mountain west, why should we be wasting more valuable natural resources for this shit? This country is SO out of touch with the current condition of the rest of the world, do you have any idea where all of this shit comes from? There are people all over the world that are starving and suffering so we can have that second or even third owned home. I just can't believe the fuck everything me me me mentality anymore, I mean aren't the mountains teaching these people anything at all?

Well fuck it, as far as Summit County goes or the damn Wasatch as far as I'm concerned you might as well interconnect the whole fucking thing, those areas are so overrun with the human cancer at this point I think those two spots are good sacrifices for that sort of thing. Go Euro there and lets stop developing more giant mega resorts in other areas. Lets focus on the projects like MRA is working on and bring skiing back for the working man and his family. 100 dollar lift tickets? Does anyone on here buy that shit? If that was what it would take for me to go skiing every time then well.......I wouldn't be skiing. It's gotten out of hand.

I don't know on the wealth argument. There are 11 million millionaires in the world these days, that number is still increasing. Whether it is increasing at the same rate as the rest of the lower classes, I dont know, but the market for ski condos is only growing. Whether or not they actually buy is another thing as well, but the potential pool is there.

Im with you on lift tickets. 100 bucks is pretty much unapproachable by the majority of people in this country. I know when I started if skiing cost then what it does now, my family probably wouldnt have even made it out. I think with lift tickets it opens up another debate about whether mountains are getting to profit hungry in general, as I highly doubt that is just covering costs plus a given margin.

[enlosandes]

I'm all for more lift served skiing, so long as it is for exciting terrain and doesn't impact natural habitats like Lynx.

Silverton, Bridger Bowl and Fernie have all opened up new, exciting lift served terrain.

And one day, I hope we can make Manitoba Mountain a reality.

[summit]

so long as it ... doesn't impact natural habitats like Lynx.

I've always found Lynx habitat impact concerns to be a stupid consideration since Canadian Lynx are mostly NOCTURNAL and may have a range of 300sqmi (40 Vails)!

Cutting and few acres of trees and grooming a few runs doesn't do shit to a Lynx.

[PNWbrit]

I'm all for more lift served skiing.....

Another round house kick to the OP's hypothesis...

[~mikey b]

Bear Valley is a good example of a ski area that has done really well with opening up new terrain over the years. Think about what it took for them to explore and develop Grizzly Bowl and the backside.

In the last few years they have added gates and opened up some hard boundaries to access some excellent terrain down into town, as well as pushing into The Zones, which have been closed for years. There is a long tradition of folks using the sidecountry, and that has fueled much of the "development" and expansion of terrain. Much of this has been done w/o any new lifts, just "new" terrain.

The current development plans and the opening of terrain into town go hand-in-hand, but the terrain expansion stands alone w/o new development. Plans to build a ton of new condos and a lift from town just aren't financially feasible right now. Condo development has been hampered by lack of drinking water and sewage capacity. You can still take a bus from town to the resort, and town runs are accessible by blue square skiers (who don't mind a bit of a hike or a skate), yet also offer rad steeps. Win-win in my opinion.

Eventually, they'll build the lift, but the terrain has always and will always be there.

Bear is interesting in another way.

They are owned by the same company that owns A Basin, who are planning to expand into new terrain. I think they did a good job with Montezuma. But Bear Valley laid off all it's mgt this summer - GM, Mtn Mgr, Ski Patrol Director, Asst Director/ Risk Mgr, Lift Maintenance etc. Jim Gentling, the GM, (ex of A Basin) resigned.

I've talked to a couple of the folks listed above this week, and they tell me that they have heard nothing regarding the upcoming season. Nothing. That does not seem good to me.

Terrain expansion should be a good thing.

I am lucky in that I work at a ski area that does really offer too much opportunity for condo and village development, but has tons of great opportunities to expand into "new" terrain.