Next Upgrades at NY Ski Areas

snoloco wrote

I'm more of a Stowe/Killington person, but Stratton and Mount Snow are great too.  

Easily impressionable considering from your own words, you have only been to Stowe once.

PeeTex wrote

 and not getting a tenth of the shit you get.

Hmm. I wonder why that is. Could it be the approach

PeeTex wrote

Sno - you ought to do a little search on this forum, try search words like Gore, snowmaking and lifts. You will find several threads where long time members are making the same arguments as you have been (although not as well reasoned) and not getting a tenth of the shit you get. Going back and quoting those would be an interesting exercise in comedy.

Yep. Odd, eh ? They've revealed the aspect of human nature that given the right conditions and a leader they'd be enthusiastic goose steppers.

Gore is a destination ski area, not a small local hill which is what I think Harvey is referring to when he says "mountains not as modernized as Gore".  

Because of this, Gore needs to be upgraded to be a destination resort.  This means open all lifts by 12/26.  You guys want lower ticket prices, but building terrain and having it closed half the time will only raise prices more.  Stratton got their lifts open by 12/26 this past season, even with the dreadful tropical weather start wile had.  Most other mountains did this too.  Last year, all ec ski areas had all lifts open by 12/26, except Mountain Creek, Whiteface, and Gore.  MC was hit hard by the thaw the week before and only missed the cutoff by one day opening all lifts on 12/27.  WF and Gore had the same or better weather as the mountains did, so the only explanation is they have insufficient capacity to open all lifts by 12/26.  What does this mean?  GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND STOP SPENDING MONEY ON GLADES AND NATURAL TRAILS THAT ARE NEVER OPEN AND SPEND IT ON SNOWMAKING UPGRADES TO FIT WITH THE TIMES AND THE COMPETITION

Sno, maybe it's me, but a ski area without on mountain lodging is not a "destination resort."  A destination resort, is, by its definition, somewhere that once you arrive, you don't have to leave for anything.  Food, lodging, nightlife and other non-skiing amenities.   While Gore is definitely different than a Plattekill or Magic, I don't see it competing with the likes of Stratton, Okemo, Stowe, Sugarbush and K-mart.

Destination resort to me is that they get more overnight visitors than day visitors.  Gore gets more overnight visitors.

Marcski wrote

There's modernization, then there is development and there is also homogenization.  Everyone pretty much agrees on modernization (with the exception of MRG).  

The issue becomes how to pay for it. That's when development usually creeps in...if we build it, they will come.  Once development begins...homogenization isn't too far behind.  

Gore, being State owned is, of course, the exception to this theory because they can't build out the base area; they get direct State funding instead. But, I suppose in their case, in order to draw the general skiing public, they are still homogenizing their lifts and trails.  

Whichever way you look at it, Platty is still the  best of everything. :).

Kind of ironic, NYS paid $5.5 million to put in the Connector lift to help the Front Street development and they haven't sold a single unit yet. Not much return on investment.

snoloco wrote

Destination resort to me is that they get more overnight visitors than day visitors.  Gore gets more overnight visitors.

But, not at the mountain, they don't!  In North Creek and the environs perhaps, but not at the mountain. Hence, those overnighters and more importantly, their money isn't going to the "resort".  Hence, its not a resort.  It's a ski mountain...that is Government owned.  In order to invest money for the things you want to do, you need to have the captive dollars that a true resort has from its' overnight guests and non-ski amenities that Gore just doesn't and probably will never have.  (or have a retired hedge fund owner as the owner of the ski hill!).  

snoloco wrote

to me

That is the key

Gore is not a destination resort; for the vast majority of skiers, it's a day tripper.  Nor is it a business run by a deep-pocketed corporate owner. Indeed, it's at the mercy of whatever money the NYS Legislature deems fit to give it, whenever that may be, and that money must be used exclusively for the specific purpose of the appropriation. So, Gore can't speculate on long-range plans for capital improvements that might never be funded.

There's nothing wrong-headed about Sno's ideas for expansion at Gore per se. The fundamental flaw underlying his reasoning is that it's based on a business construct that simply doesn't apply to Gore.

Marcski wrote

Sno, maybe it's me, but a ski area without on mountain lodging is not a "destination resort."  A destination resort, is, by its definition, somewhere that once you arrive, you don't have to leave for anything.  Food, lodging, nightlife and other non-skiing amenities.   While Gore is definitely different than a Plattekill or Magic, I don't see it competing with the likes of Stratton, Okemo, Stowe, Sugarbush and K-mart.

It's definitely an interesting debate.  For me, when I lived in PA, I considered Gore an "overnight destination" but not necessarily a  destination resort.  I think many people in the Mid-Atlantic region would consider Gore an overnight destination.  For several years we drove up from Scranton on Friday nights to spend the weekend.  The drive was similar to that of So. and Central VT... we always preferred Gore over any of the above mentioned resorts.

 

snoloco wrote

Gore gets more overnight visitors.

I'd like to know the source of this information.

EDIT: This is ancient and I was never sure how accurate it was:

http://nyskiblog.com/gore-mountain-skier-visits-by-region/

Source: ORDA Annual Report 2007

EDIT 2: LOL nepa.

Harvey wrote

snoloco wrote

Gore gets more overnight visitors.

I'd like to know the source of this information.

Here you go... It's old (2007), but it is relevant:

 

Harvey wrote

EDIT 2: LOL nepa

Even that chart disproves the statements in the text.

I want to know where sno got his info.

Harvey wrote

I want to know where sno got his info.

He's approaching this debate like a politician, and pulling the facts out of his ass.

Marcski wrote

Sno, maybe it's me, but a ski area without on mountain lodging is not a "destination resort."  A destination resort, is, by its definition, somewhere that once you arrive, you don't have to leave for anything.  Food, lodging, nightlife and other non-skiing amenities.   While Gore is definitely different than a Plattekill or Magic, I don't see it competing with the likes of Stratton, Okemo, Stowe, Sugarbush and K-mart.

Tomato Tomaaato.

I'm not pulling facts out of my ass.  If you looked at any snow report from 13-14, you would've saw that all mountains on the ec had all their lifts open by 12/26 except MC, Gore, and Whiteface.  If you care about terrain availability, you'd want them to get their act together and stop adding glades and get snowmaking on the Ski Bowl.  The best glades aren't even on the map for many of you.  Why subject yourself to a full holiday crowd on a mountain that was half open while everyone else was almost 100% open?  Like you said Harvey, the way it works in ORDA is if you spend 50,000 dollars on one thing, you have 50,000 less to spend anywhere else.  If you spend a bunch of money adding glades on a mountain that already has more than enough, you won't have as much money to spend on proper snowmaking so the Ski Bowl can actually be open on a regular basis.  In case any of you haven't realized, there isn't any connection from the main mountain to the ski bowl with snowmaking.  With Abenaki not happening this summer, that will be a 6th season with no proper connection.  You can keep wanting more glades and getting them forever, and you can also keep cramming onto the slowest gondola at any ec ski area forever, and hoof it around The Pipeline traverse forever.  Or we could get a proper connection to the ski bowl NOW.

Spread out and sectioned mountains like Gore need good connections between the sections, not a layout that centers everything around the gondola and requires one to go down and around to move between sections.  The last connection we need is Abenaki.  

The other things that would make a lot of sense are to increase food options at the Saddle Lodge and add a summit lodge near the top of Straightbrook by demolishing the old gondola building and building the new lodge on the lodge where Rumor drops off.  Better food options mid mountain also reduce the number of people at the base area which is already beyond capacity, even with many lifts running empty.

Snowballs wrote

Marcski wrote

Sno, maybe it's me, but a ski area without on mountain lodging is not a "destination resort."  A destination resort, is, by its definition, somewhere that once you arrive, you don't have to leave for anything.  Food, lodging, nightlife and other non-skiing amenities.   While Gore is definitely different than a Plattekill or Magic, I don't see it competing with the likes of Stratton, Okemo, Stowe, Sugarbush and K-mart.

Tomato Tomaaato.

Really. You don't think the revenue generated at a destination resort from lodging and etc is significant?

Sno thinks his dad's $100 in lift tickets pays for all the crap he insists on at Gore

snoloco wrote

 GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND STOP SPENDING MONEY ON GLADES AND NATURAL TRAILS THAT ARE NEVER OPEN AND SPEND IT ON SNOWMAKING UPGRADES TO FIT WITH THE TIMES AND THE COMPETITION

Newsflash for know-it-all! Most of the glades were ALREADY THERE and being skied prior to being "on the map". $ spent equates to the cost of a shiny new sign and an alteration to the trail map.