Is bigger necessarily better?

Here's an interesting article that should start a nice little debate. Eager to read what the collective has to say.

The Big Question: Do Skiers Always Want Bigger & Faster?

SlopeFillers, November 29, 2011

You're going to have to define the question better, I think. Are you referring to expansion, neighboring areas linking together (e.g. Solitude as mentioned in the article), or small areas vs bigger areas?

Regardless, I don't think there is a blanket answer, it depends what is right for each mountain.

Take Jay Peak for example: the proposed West Bowl expansion is definitely needed. It will give the area much needed protected intermediate terrain and finally make Jay a top to bottom family friendly mountain with good intermediate groomers. It will also spread out the powder frenzy a bit and ease up lift lines on Jay's best days.

Whiteface's expansion is really cool, lots of great terrain over there. Gore's expansion has made lots of folks happy and made the mountain terrain offerings really good and expansive. Saddleback and Sugarloaf recently cut lots of new tree skiing to match demand, both excellent. Lots of areas are cutting more glades (or at least putting stuff already there on the map).

Regarding neighboring areas linked together, I think that is win win. The Killington Pico interconnect seems like it will never happen but tons of folks want it to happen. Lots of folks miss the Stowe Smuggs interconnect and those that never experienced it wish it was still an option. The only way this fails is if one mountain is way superior to the other, pass holders would be negatively effected by having the other areaa' "riff raff" clogging up the better mountain.

Big vs small? It depends. I am wrapping up an extensive effort this season to ski every area in northern New England over 1k (and many more under 1k). Honestly? I won't ever go back to many of those areas around 1k. I have a few favorites that I really enjoyed that I try to get back to (Black NH and Abram ME).

Or do you mean big vs small in terms of ownership and infrastructure? For example, Saddleback and Burke are 2k mountains and Magic not far below that but have small infrastructure and a family owned feel. That is noticeable and enjoyable.

Basically, it depends and the question needs to be better defined. And there may be a lot of perspective difference west vs east.

I haven't followed the links in the article, but the post puts the focus on smaller, more community oriented ski areas with the following attributes:

Here are a few of the rules their “mountain playgrounds” will live by:

Strategically placed lifts
Free parking with quick access to lifts
An updated, real-time website that provides information about lift operations and weather conditions
Alternative off-the-slopes activities for those not interested in being on the hill and/or bad weather days
A reliable eco-friendly shuttle bus system
A clock at all lift stations
The ability to purchase membership shares and have a voice in your own mountain playground
Shareholder and member privileges

#1, I feel that slow, smart lifts are a fine alternative to high speed people movers.  One of my favorite lifts at Gore is the Darkside chair.  I like the idea of Silverton mountain (one lift up, endless skinning opportunities once you're up there).  And I never minded the "slow" lifts at Smuggs or the Single chair at MRG.  More time on the lift=more time to rest your legs.  Because if you're skiing those two mountains the way I do, they are freaking tiring.
#2 is obvious
#3 is something that every resort should do (big and small)
#4 seems like once you cross that threshold, you morph from "skier's mountain" into "resort". It's nice to want ice skating, fine dining, horse drawn sleigh rides, tobogganing, and snow tubing, but when I think of smaller, community owned mountains, this just adds extra layers of complexity.  Now you need people to run the snowtubing operation.  Now you need to pay for the Zamboni to maintain the ice rink.  Now you need to find stables for the Horses that pull the sleighs. If these kind of things develop organically, fine.  But I don't feel like a community owned ski area should invest in that sort of thing.
#5 and #6 are easy, and should be done at every mountain
And #7 and #8 are the basis of the idea.  If a community has a stake in the mountain, they feel like they are responsible for the mountain's survival.  I know that if I bought into Magic or MRG, I would probably ski there a lot more, spend my money in the cafeterias and bars, help out with trail clearing and glade cutting, talk the place up more to my friends, and take a more active role in trying to decide what the best decisions are for the mountain.  Plus, it would be kind of nice to get some perks for having a financial stake in the place.

All in all, I think a lot of smaller areas would be pretty smart to adopt this model.  If they can find a few dedicated hardcores that completely buy into the cause, they can start to build the social network (by facebook & twitter, but also by word of mouth and positive feedback) that every business seems to need these days.

"Small areas" are surviving building parks and beginner areas for families, not this stuff.

As I said once, if everyone, or, a lot of people wanted Silverton, they would go there. Nobody goes there (relatively speaking). Put the bong down.

If Silverton was where Gore was (with the same terrain and snowfall), I'd be there every day that I have free.

mattchuck2 wrote

If Silverton was where Gore was (with the same terrain and snowfall), I'd be there every day that I have free.

ahhhhhhh if Silverton was where Gore IS, I'd be there too....7 hrs vs...... well........a lot.

Benny Profane wrote

"Small areas" are surviving building parks and beginner areas for families, not this stuff.

As I said once, if everyone, or, a lot of people wanted Silverton, they would go there. Nobody goes there (relatively speaking). Put the bong down.

I'd beg to differ and believe there is a strong demand for more lift assisted big mountain skiing. And to the best of my understanding, Silverton is turning a profit.

turning a profit and high demand are are not necessarily dependent upon each other.

I mean, let's take it down a notch. Why does hardly anyone go to Crested Butte? Because most people can't ski the North Face off a poma, which is the only interesting skiing there. Most people want Keystone and Breck.

mattchuck2 wrote

If Silverton was where Gore was (with the same terrain and snowfall), I'd be there every day that I have free.

And if my ex wife looked like Bardot in her prime and treated me like I was King, I'd still be married.

Benny Profane wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

If Silverton was where Gore was (with the same terrain and snowfall), I'd be there every day that I have free.

And if my ex wife looked like Bardot in her prime and treated me like I was King, I'd still be married.

She looks pretty prime right now.


I think you're missing his point.

Or maybe not. Matt, if you lived in CO and had a choice between Silverton vs. other SOCO mountains, would you still ski there?

Well, that's a buzz killer.

fujative wrote

Matt, if you lived in CO and had a choice between Silverton vs. other SOCO mountains, would you still ski there?

Yep, but maybe not as much as I would if I was richer (that $139 lift ticket is a little pricey for someone like me).  I'd probably try to find a way to work as a guide there, then I'd ski there all the time.

If I didn't find a way to finagle myself in, and I lived in, say, Durango, I'd probably do most of my skiing at Durango Mountain Resort, with 4 or 5 trips up to Silverton per year.  Then I'd go to Telluride if I wanted to class it up for a weekend.  I think I'd do pretty well between those 3 mountains.  Add in the unreal mountain biking in the area, and I could totally see myself living out there.  I wonder if anyone needs a Geologist . . .

I've heard that you can reduce your cost of skiing there by doing chores and some work, like early season bootpacking.

Benny Profane wrote

I've heard that you can reduce your cost of skiing there by doing chores and some work, like early season bootpacking.

I heard that too . . .

It looks pretty good right now:

Silverton Opening Day 12/3/11 from UnofficialNetworks.com on Vimeo.

You think that looks good? Jeez Matt, put the bong down!

Benny Profane wrote

turning a profit and high demand are are not necessarily dependent upon each other.

I mean, let's take it down a notch. Why does hardly anyone go to Crested Butte? Because most people can't ski the North Face off a poma, which is the only interesting skiing there. Most people want Keystone and Breck.

I agree most people want the Keystones and Brecks, and lucky for them, there are many destination resorts with intermediate and lower advanced terrain available. I also feel there is a segment of the ski population who's needs are currently not being meet.

I believe CB's skier visits are down for 3 main reasons. 1) Colorado has the biggest concentration of ski areas. 2) CB's remote location (especially in relationship to the other CO resorts and population). 3) CB's is prone to drought years and less than stellar conditions.

soulskier wrote

I also feel there is a segment of the ski population who's needs are currently not being meet.

Let's keep it regional. What segment of the skiing population is not having its needs met in the northeast? I'm pretty darn satisfied.

soulskier wrote

 I also feel there is a segment of the ski population who's needs are currently not being meet.

Well, I think that there are too many ski areas. The variety of experience among them is very possibly the greatest you may see in your lifetime, as the western world's economies shrink over the next twenty years and many go under. Pretty much every type of skier can have their needs met from the choices before them, from the local 200 ft drop hill to Killington to Vail to Jackson to Verbier to Silverton to Wiegele. If they have the coin, that is. That's what limits experience, in the end. Well, that, and some mad skills.

Skiers who require fresh, natural snow ( and lots of it ) are not having their needs met in the northeast ( unless you live/ski Jay ).

Lots of great input in this thread.

I'm not the most educated on this topic, and I have far more questions than answers.

I agree that "big" is a relative term.  The article refers to Manitoba as "hardly big" at 1000 acres.  How many ski areas in the East are 1000 acres?  Killington is around 750 acres (?).. is anything in the east bigger? Or maybe size is about skier visit capacity not acres?

How many skier visits do the biggest areas out west get? 500,000? Whatever it is I bet there are more skier visits per acre in the east.  So I'd agree with River that the question is regional.

From my very skier centric point of view, I like more terrain - it makes an area a destination.

New York ski areas are already highly impacted, when you compare them to surrounding wilderness.  But they are still a small part of the land within the blue lines.  IMO the size of the ski areas is a minimal part of their impact.  Even snowmaking is a small component of the impact.  The big environmental cost has to be the travel to and from the mountains.  With air travel being so much worse for the environment than auto travel (per passenger mile) the mountains out West may have a higher impact per skier visit.  The trick to making skiing less damaging to the environment would be improving the efficiency and practicality of travel.  High speed snow trains?

My opinion on speed: slow lifts are great. Put lots of chairs on the cable, run the lifts slow and let me spend my waiting time sitting and looking at the views instead of standing in line. I'm being a bit facetious as there is a place for high speed lifts - but not everywhere.

So I guess I like my eastern ski areas bigger and slower.