Jay Peak's new waterpark

On further reflection I realize I should have added "not sure" as a choice.

To some degree, I agree with all responses except the last one.

The inside of waterpark as it was on March 5 of this year. Honestly I didn't know what to think:

 

Seems like the WP is somewhat hidden from the hill by the hotel, and the trees that will grow up.

Plus the pic was taken from the tram which is higher up than you'd be most of the time.


Recent Twitpic of Jay Peak's new hotel/waterpark

There should be a fifth poll choice:

"Definitely compromises the Jay Peak vibe, but I'll hold my nose and continue to ski there."

Jamesdeluxe wrote

There should be a fifth poll choice:

"Definitely compromises the Jay Peak vibe, but I'll hold my nose and continue to ski there."

Apparently, Harv didn't feel the need to create a poll answer just for you.

riverc0il wrote

Apparently, Harv didn't feel the need to create a poll answer just for you.

How's the view from your Claybrook time share?

Jamesdeluxe wrote

How's the view from your Claybrook time share?

I ain't holding my nose at Jay even after the waterpark. But I was holding my nose at Bush even before Claybrook. :)

James, if you hold your nose long enough, you might be able to enjoy the experience of the Stateside washrooms. Development can't come soon enough to that particular part of the "hard core Jay Peak experience."

I am squarely in the "doesn't matter to me" camp. If you had asked me the poll question two years ago, the answer might have been different: Waterpark - WTF? Now it's closer to: Waterpark - Wow That's Fantastic. Watching the construction, seeing positive results like Tram Haus Lodge, meeting Steve Wright and getting some insider information has really helped me see the Big Picture. If you want Jay Peak to stay alive, maybe you have to suck it up with the waterpark thing.

In my humble opinion, a so-called "hardcore" ski vibe has little to do with what exists at the base of the mountain. It has everything to do with the skiers on the mountain, the quality of snow and nature of the terrain. If those factors exist and the mountain doesn't get priced out of range (a la Stowe), the hard cores will simply ignore the buildings, use the washrooms and keep skiing. Without the skiers, Jay Peak is simply a mountain in northern Vermont. The skiers will keep coming. The Jay Cloud will keep forming. The skiing will still be challenging and amazing. And at times, like at every hill, the skiing will be crappy. The nay-sayers will get over it and park at Stateside like they always have.

If MRG built a waterpark, THAT would ruin the vibe. Jay Peak has always been a commercially-oriented, wanna-be mainstream resort. What do you think the hardcore crowd of the 60s said when a faux-Bavarian stucco travesty appeared in the North East Kingdom?

Don't be a NIMBY, it's not your back yard.

Sick Bird Rider wrote

Don't be a NIMBY, it's not your back yard.

To repeat, all of the business reasons for it make sense to me. I didn't say that I would stop going there because of the waterpark. I just wish that it hadn't been plopped dead nuts at the center of the base village, right next to the main lifts.

Let me get this straight; just because my opinion differs slightly from yours makes me a NIMBY?  

Jamesdeluxe wrote

Sick Bird Rider wrote

Don't be a NIMBY, it's not your back yard.

Let me get this straight; just because my opinion differs slightly from yours makes me a NIMBY?

You have a back yard of personal experience and expectation. Given that I live a long way from the NEK, it is certainly not in my physical back yard either. You and others may be hanging on to a idealized vision of Jay, formed by public opinion and your own experience. Times change, places change, life goes on. All I suggest is that you open your mind to the unchangeable new reality. It is not as bad as we all thought, the WP does not interfere with the landscape that much, and it is not "right next to the main lifts." You can hardly see it from either the parking lot or the lifts. I never thought I would be a supporter of it and I'm getting tired of the discussion. It is what it is, let's go skiing.

Seems like whenever I create a poll, there are options I haven't considered.

(FYI the Forum itself doesn't have a poll feature. I've "embedded" a poll from Poll Daddy (polldaddy.com). An account is free and anyone can do it. It's a little finicky to get it right and you have make sure that when you embed it you use the flash version.)

For some reason the poll didn't let me vote.

I think that we all get used to a lot of things. Think about the adjustment people made to chairlifts. They really aren't very attractive, compared to rope tows, or mountains without lifts. And for most of us now they just blend into the background.

When we were at Jay, I didn't "get" how hidden the waterpark would be behind the new hotel.  I agree that from the hill it will be a non-factor.  And I'd never even seen the old hotel.

No question that we bring our personal experience to everything. In the case of Jay, there is also an strong existing brand that has come from years of marketing. That brand has also been strengthened significantly, among diehard skiers, in forums like this one.  And there is one other factor.

I think it was David Ogilvy who said something to the effect that "nothing builds a brand like the truth." Jay is amazing. Tons of snow, excellent terrain and a tree skiing culture.  The reason that brand is so strong is in large part, because it's all true.  It will still be true with a new hotel and a waterpark.  The brand will migrate, but a lot of it won't change.

Still my favorite facility at Jay was Stateside.  I know it has issues, but I really like that building. But as said by others, Jay is a business, and it couldn't really exist and compete if it didn't move forward.

I can see how a waterpark wouldn't make the cut for an ambiance snob. So it is ALL GOOD. Different strokes for different folks and all. I just don't know how Jay could have ever made the cut if ambiance is your skiing raison d'etre. Slopeside condos, a slopeside hotel, function room, high speed quad, and Vermont's only tram (all pre-build up) certainly don't suggest Jay is an old school classic no frills mountain a la MRG, Cannon, Wildcat, Magic, etc. Even Burke is building up with more slopeside condos and its 2nd HSQ (finally). I say bring it on, and I like old school.

I do like how the new Hotel Jay (a replacement an already existing hotel) covers up the waterpark from the Tramside base area. Looks like you might only be able to see it from the Tram or higher up on the hill.

Sick Bird Rider wrote

All I suggest is that you open your mind to the unchangeable new reality.

If my "home" mountain, Belleayre, had gone ahead with its more than 12-year-old plans to create a large resort (similar to Jay with condos, hotel, golf course, etc.) just outside the state property lines, it would have completely changed the atmosphere of the mountain. Like the other state-owned ski areas in NY, all you can see from anywhere on Belle is mountains, hills, and forests. I think that it's a huge bonus to the on-mountain ski experience there and would be a tremendous loss if they went ahead with it. However, just like you, I would have no choice but to accept it, look at the positive aspects (more revenue for the ski area that could be used for infrastructure improvements and much-needed tourism money for a very down-at-the-heels region), and move on.

riverc0il wrote

I can see how a waterpark wouldn't make the cut for an ambiance snob. So it is ALL GOOD. Different strokes for different folks and all. I just don't know how Jay could have ever made the cut if ambiance is your skiing raison d'etre.

If I only skied mountains that were completely free of resort-related accoutrements, such as Hickory, I'd have a pretty short list of choices, which would not be good for someone who loves variety as much as I do. One of my best-of choices from the ambiance snob blog entry, Grand Targhee, has a heated outdoor pool, an extensive spa, restaurants, hotels, etc., all of which I've used in my visits there over the past decade, and I didn't sneer or otherwise blow a gasket over them.

We were at Jay for three days in March and I don't remember making any negative comments about their resort offerings affecting my ski experience because, well, they didn't. If, over the years, I'd had the money to afford slopeside accomms on destination trips, I'd have pulled the trigger every time, so there goes my street cred as an ambiance snob.

Personally, I've always disliked slope-side lodging and resorts. As a Whiteface regular, that's one of the things I'm most grateful for ... with the ADK park regulations, it's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that a slope-side resort will ever be built at Whiteface.

I just think that resorts like this detract from the overall experience of getting away from "the city" and heading to the mountains for a day or two. Obviously ski lodges, lift towers, snowmaking equipment and the like don't belong out there either, but these are generally less obtrusive, and don't usually leave you feeling like you're at the neighborhood mall.

Obviously, the economics of these resorts are hard to argue with, and almost always end up as a net-positive for the mountains they're built at, but I still don't like them. Is it really that big a deal to get on a shuttle bus or tram, or in some cases, a chairlift, for a five minute ride to get to a resort? Do we really need to be so catered to all the time? Just build the resorts a couple of miles away ... it's not that big a deal. It's clear that there are MANY people out there who want the same kind of resort experience that you can get at the beach when they go skiing, and it's also clear that the industry has to meet the demands of its customers, but for me, it's just out of place!

Just my two cents!

Not opposed, but why a waterpark and not something more more in line with a small ski village with restuarants and apre ski? The options for this now have most vacating the place after skiing. Are there that many people going head there for a waterpark? How many people really want to deal with splashing around in a waterpark after getting wind whipped on the mountain in sub zero weather? We've brought some intermediates up there who don't care to return because the trails/intermediate terrain are more times than not blown off and icy. Cold lifts. It just wasn't a pleasant experience for them. Also know a few familys that have gone up and the skiing experience wasn't that great for them. I don't see a waterpark bringing them back. Is the mountain ever really going to be a family place? Except for the locals

Face4Me wrote

Personally, I've always disliked slope-side lodging and resorts...

Pretty much agree with all of your post F4M, and I also love that about Gore and Whiteface - no slopeslide.  BUT... Jay's slopeside is REALLY well located.  What they did was to add (extremely gentle) terrain BELOW the base served by an ancient fixed grip lift. The terrain would be good for teaching little kids.

It's almost as if the condos are in the River Lot at Whiteface, or the lowest lot (Lot F?) at Gore.  You really don't see the condos anywhere and you get the convenience if that's what you want.

skimore wrote

Not opposed, but why a waterpark and not something more more in line with a small ski village with restuarants and apre ski? ...

I get this too.  I'm not thinking that you'd head to the WP after a full day, but maybe those who don't care to ski, or only want to do a few hours might be into it.  The ski village concept would probably have more vibe/ambiance, but would also be less unique? Not arguing for it, just thinking out loud.

One thing Steve W mentioned ... Jay gets a lot of business from Canadian hockey teams, who train on the rink, and those guys want entertainment for their families.

Harvey44 wrote

One thing Steve W mentioned ... Jay gets a lot of business from Canadian hockey teams, who train on the rink, and those guys want entertainment for their families.

Fine for the hockey guys, but what about trying to keep the skiers around? We rarely use or get too concerned about using Jay peak lodging. What does it bring other than being close?

skimore wrote

Fine for the hockey guys

The hockey guys are a big new revenue source for them and something that very few other, if any, ski areas can attract.

The Icehaus/WP are pure bottom-line decisions and seem to go hand-in-hand. Contrary to what rivercOil and Sickbirdrider may think about me not coming to terms with certain realities, I completely get JP's thinking.

skimore wrote

Fine for the hockey guys, but what about trying to keep the skiers around? We rarely use or get too concerned about using Jay peak lodging. What does it bring other than being close?

Harv once mentioned that while he has no interest in the Waterpark... if the Waterpark can get his family to Jay for a weekend so he can get to the mountain, it is a cool thing for him. I imagine many other families are in the same boat both with the waterpark and with the ice arena. Though the Ice Arena could stand on its own. In that regard, Jay recognized that the local community could use an Ice Arena and it could be profitable for the resort. I suspect that may be even more important than giving Jay yet another thing to do for its guests when the lifts stop turning.

These things are not being built for the hardcore skiers. But the hardcore skiers don't pay the bills... even at a place like Jay. Heck, even at a place like Mad River Glen for that matter. MRG wouldn't exist in its current form if it wasn't for families. Hardcores alone can not sustain operations of this magnitude.

riverc0il wrote

Harv once mentioned that while he has no interest in the Waterpark... if the Waterpark can get his family to Jay for a weekend so he can get to the mountain, it is a cool thing for him. I imagine many other families are in the same boat both with the waterpark and with the ice arena. Though the Ice Arena could stand on its own. In that regard, Jay recognized that the local community could use an Ice Arena and it could be profitable for the resort. I suspect that may be even more important than giving Jay yet another thing to do for its guests when the lifts stop turning.

It's true.   While Zelda has always wanted to visit Jay Peak, now with a five year old, she's not too keen on the idea of going there.  What would she and Neve do, while I was skiing bell-to-bell?  They'd probably ski the morning, and then quit. What then?  She's ALL OVER the waterpark and really wants to check it out.  (If Neve's happy, she's happy.)

And she LOVES the idea of staying slopeside as it eliminates the need to face my stormtrooper style wakeup call for first tracks.  I'll get up at the crack of dawn and meet them somewhere on the hill at 10:30.

Even the owner of Plattekill and his family - pretty hardcore - appreciated the ice rink.  From Laszlo's trip report on the blog:

"After a late lunch, we hit the Ice Haus arena to play some hockey and do some skating. It was a deal I made with the kids to make this trip instead of a beach somewhere, which is what Danielle really wanted. There is a beach in our future sometime this spring/summer. But for now, spring can wait; we ski."

So he convinced the family to go to Jay in April instead of the beach, by dangling the ice rink.  That's got to be music to Bill Stenger's ears.

Harvey44 wrote

  What would she and Neve do, while I was skiing bell-to-bell?  

There are no bells at Jay Peak. You start skiing, then you stop. Sorry for the drift but where are these places with bells?