Aspen 3.26

[rfarren]

Aspen Highlands I would argue fulfills both requirements.....the best lines are all easily accessible.

????? The "best line" is presumably Highlands Bowl, a once a day experience if you're not a superfit local, and probably inaccessible to most sea level based tourists until they have been in Colorado several days. Highlands is laid out on a north-facing spine. Most of the steeps drop east (Steeplechase) or partly west (Olympic) from the spine. rfarren would have seen a lot of sun effect there in late March if he had not been lucky with the fresh snow.

Certainly the best line is the Highlands Bowl, but all of those ridges off the top are pretty darn steep and easily accessible . I was there on a sunny day and although some lines did get manky most of them skied darn well. The trees on both sides of the ridge are well protected and skied beautifully. Highlands' issue is that the bowl is like a siren calling your name and after you hit it your legs are exhausted. That makes much of the easier to reach steep stuff off the ridge untouchable till after lunch when your legs are somewhat recovered. Either way, I think the best strategy is hit some of the steep stuff first, then do the hike, ski to the bottom and eat lunch. Then hit Ajax for some high speed cruisers while your legs are jelly.

...and the majority of the terrain isn't that steep

For south facing, steep is more sensitive to sun, not less. That's one reason why it's a much bigger issue at Jackson than Vail, the other being that for the overall ski area Vail is still ~40% north facing vs. 10% at Jackson. This means in spring you can ski the back bowls during the likely short window of optimal conditions and still have good skiing elsewhere at Vail during the rest of the day. I will hopefully get my first experience with that on the upcoming trip.

I didn't realize that being steep is worse when the terrain is south facing. Interesting stuff.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

10% at Jackson.

Woefully inaccurate and simplistic.

 

[socal]

10% at Jackson.

Woefully inaccurate and simplistic.

Felt pretty close to accurate to me when I was there in February. Everything but the north facing terrain was coral reef and after it snowed about 10 inches we went looking for anything with a smooth subsurface, we found some, but even the locals commented that there wasn't much that faces north.

 

[Marc_C]

10% at Jackson.

Woefully inaccurate and simplistic.

Felt pretty close to accurate to me when I was there in February. Everything but the north facing terrain was coral reef and after it snowed about 10 inches we went looking for anything with a smooth subsurface, we found some, but even the locals commented that there wasn't much that faces north.

I'm inclined to agree. A look at a topo map confirmed what I remember seeing on several summer trips [no, I've never skied there] - the ski area faces mostly southeast, with what appears to be damned little north facing.

 

[rfarren]

I visited Jackson in March in 03' and it was pretty crappy.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Heh, that "woefully inaccurate" line is a quote from a Jackson local, toward the bottom of this recent interview.

Patrick joked that he knew who the target of the comment was.

 

[longshanks]

Europeans for example tend to mostly ignore the shopping or off-hill stuff and focus more on the skiing and maybe the quality of the food/party when choosing.

I have to disagree. North Americans are much more ski-centric. The Euros are famous for late staying out at night, late getting on the hill in the morning, and taking time for 2+ hour gourmet lunches during the middle of the ski day as well.

The Euro method is old school...and not for every one. But if you have the time, money, and stamina (tiger blood)...why the fuck not?

 

[Tony Crocker]

that "woefully inaccurate" line is a quote from a Jackson local

who skis at a level that most of us can only dream about. While Bob Peters finds late season skiing at Jackson enjoyable, I didn't see anything in that interview stating that in-bounds Jackson terrain was more than 10% north facing.

Elsewhere jamesdeluxe has stated that he might not be up to the "top-tier" terrain at Alta and Snowbird. But at least most of that has consistent and reliable snow conditions. I'd be curious to see how much of Jackson he could ski on a typical March day with far more challenging surfaces than in LCC. Given that 3 posters in this thread immediately supported my view regarding Jackson's orientation, I invite James to take a March trip out out there and see how much he likes it. I suspect he would bail out after a day and head for Targhee or Utah like I did in 1986.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Given that 3 posters in this thread immediately supported my view regarding Jackson's orientation, I invite James to take a March trip out out there and see how much he likes it. I suspect he would bail out after a day and head for Targhee or Utah like I did in 1986.

I was yanking your chain.

This is another case, similar to the ongoing foodfight with Admin about skiing LCC on powder frenzy days vs. elsewhere in the SLC area, of where Tony's assertions work for me (and probably most visiting skiers). The problem is that his writing style makes it sound like he's tossing out universal pronouncements to which to a highly experienced local -- who intimately knows the ins and outs of his favorite hill -- can, from his POV, legitimately call "woefully inaccurate and simplistic."

 

[Marc_C]

This is another case, similar to the ongoing foodfight with Admin about skiing LCC on powder frenzy days vs. elsewhere in the SLC area, of where Tony's assertions work for me (and probably most visiting skiers). The problem is that his writing style makes it sound like he's tossing out universal pronouncements to which to a highly experienced local -- who intimately knows the ins and outs of his favorite hill -- can, from his POV, legitimately call "woefully inaccurate and simplistic."

It's more that he makes assertions of pure opinion with the same veracity and certainty as those of objective, easily verified fact, like the relative lack of north facing terrain at Jackson. As you point out, the locals take issue with many of the opinions, which we feel are either often ill-informed or rely on a specific set of parameters or attributes that are frequently unstated.

 

[EMSC]

The Euro method is old school...and not for every one. But if you have the time, money, and stamina (tiger blood)...why the [censored] not?

That's part of it. The Euro's get so much time off comparatively...


And now that an Aspen TR has turned into a discussion of Jackson... My week there way back in the 90's was in late March and was excellent... Of course it was in a storm cycle where there was only one day without new snow. But the couple of half days when the sun did come out, it got hot in a hurry and the new snow got super heavy super quick.

 

[SoCal Rider]

Easy. Repeat after me: Aspen real, Vail phony.

Why?
Age:
Lame idea: Aspen is real because it's older than Vail.
Age doesn't work for me, that would mean that NYC was fake and London was real, or actually London is fake and Rome is real...or well Rome is fake and Cairo is real.

Purpose:
Lame idea: Aspen was a mining town first so people lived there before the mountain. Vail was created to specifically serve the mountain.
Again, I think that doesn't work for me as nowadays they are both resort towns. You can't judge a place based upon what it once was. That's like saying NYC is real because it was once a beaver trading post.

Architectural integretity:
Lame idea:Aspen is full of buildings that capture anolder time and have architectural integrity to their time period
Almost all american architecture is built following European models, even such "american" styles as federal style are beholden to older European designs. Who cares if Vail wants to create buildings that look like European villages? What the heck do you think the White House is?

People actually live in town:
This one I will actually concede, with the caveat that we are solely talking about the town. I'm sure there are many people who live around Vail full time, the same way there are many people who live in suburbs around cities and just because people don't live in high density situations in a downtown area doesn't negate a city (see LA). Besides, I would make an educated guess that the vast majority of the populations in both towns are equally transient.

I'm sure there are other reasons to negate what you said, but it's getting late.

Rob,

I'm finally coming back to this after writing my response in my head days ago, and I think I've forgotten most of it . ...

I really liked your post and the thought you put a lot into it, as opposed to mine. But as purposely glib as my post was, there is some sincerity there, too. I mean, Aspen feels more real. I do think architecture can be (to be diplomatic) a reflection of a town's worth, for a lack of a better word. Not that I see this issue through an intellectual's prism. I'm not that guy, beyond reading a design criticism story in the LA Times every now and again. (I got a lot of Stone Oaked Arrogant Bastard in me.) Don't we all make value judgments on cities and towns based in part on the way the damn things look? There is a difference between a graceful ager such as Aspen and one like Vail Village, which looks like a ready-made theme-park-style version of a Swiss Alps hamlet seemingly dropped on the ground from a Zeppelin. You know, it's kinda like music -- the good bands all borrow from their heroes but absorb their influences and grow; the lesser bands pilfer but don't do enough of the letting-the-individuality-come-out thing.

Having said all that, I have spent exactly one afternoon in Aspen, in August 2000, and about five days in and around Vail, so I am obviously an overly qualified expert on the areas. It's not that I'm trying to paint Vail residents - the people - as boring rich cats because their generic village blows. And Aspenites as cultured old-money cool folks cuz the buildings are older and more tasteful. I simply think one is more interesting to visit than the other. So when I am in Colo., I'd rather visit Breck, Frisco, Aspen, Glenwood and Leadville over Vail when It comes to getting my Main St./brewpub/local merchants and architecture kicks.

Forget London vs New York. What about NY vs my "big city," San Diego. What are 95% of people going to say? And it's going to be based, in part, on age - age of buildings, culture etc.

 

[snowave]

I think I shoulda poured myself a double Rye instead of a light beer to read this entire thread....

 

[Acidchrist]

This was a great thread to read in bed prior to coffee. Thanks to ALL who have contributed. The long and short of it? Why that's obvious!
Snowbasin's a better ski area than Alta...