Big changes this season at The Canyons

[rsmith]

The reality is that the Canyons is a real estate play. The ski experience is just to get people in the door - it doesn't have to be best-of-breed. The owners have thousands of acres of private property to play with, compared with most resorts that have to deal with the Forest Service and environmentalists every time they sneeze. Success at the Canyons depends on how many condos they sell and how many people they lock into the Colony, not what some powder junkies think about their relatively crappy mountain.

So, the mountain and snow conditions are not top tier, but name me one other large (3000+ acre, 2000+ foot vertical) resort (not in Utah) with a village, condos, golf course, etc. that is a 2 or 3 hour flight from either coast and a 45 minute drive from the airport. The Canyons is not very desirable to locals given the skiing value, but there's probably enough people who want what the Canyons offers over somewhere like Vail and are willing to make the investment. Given that, every decision they make should be with the property investors in mind, with local skiers a distant second.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'm guessing that the real estate play at The Canyons went down in flames and was a key factor in the ASC bankruptcy. Would anyone here want to be in the vacation home real estate development business right now?

I suspect interested buyers can bottom fish for properties that are available for a fraction of the original selling price. Like this one: http://www.auctionmammoth.com/

 

[socal]

I suspect interested buyers can bottom fish for properties that are available for a fraction of the original selling price. Like this one: http://www.auctionmammoth.com/

At first I thought wow, that could be a good deal but since it's an auction and prices will likely be much higher when all is said and done. I downloaded the info book, and sure enough I found the catch, $716-$830 per month in condo fees. Clearly the developer would rather shed their liabilities than hold out for a better market, can't say I blame them (not that they likely have a choice).

 

[Marc_C]

I'm guessing that the real estate play at The Canyons went down in flames and was a key factor in the ASC bankruptcy.

The fractional ownership condos at the Sundial Lodge, one of the first properties ASC built at The Canyons, sold out in 48 hrs. The Grand America was 95% sold within a month. At the time, new real estate in Park City was doing extraordinarily well.

 

[Admin]

The Grand America

Grand Summit.

 

[biny]

Hi guys. I've logged a good number of days skiing in Utah over the past few years, particularly at the Canyons. I really like the place (it's my favorite of the PC resorts), and while the changes don't address all the issues, I think they'll be a definite improvement.

Unfortunately, there are limited options to fix some of the biggest shortcomings mentioned thus far - namely base access and some of the topography issues. I couldn't agree more that the resort would have been MUCH better served using Tombstone as the main base area, but there isn't much anyone can do about that now that the land has been developed with multi-million dollar private homes.

But that said, I think part of the Canyons' biggest problem is based more on perception than reality. I guess because of it's checkered history, piecemeal creation, and just pure vast size, it seems to have established a reputation over the years as being lower elevation, less snow, shorter runs etc. But the reality is the elevation is almost identical to PCMR (Deer Valley is actually the lowest of the three), it has the most vertical, and the snow difference is negligible (at least that has been my experience).

Look at a Google map and you'll see the top of Jupiter is equidistant between PCMR's Summit House and the top of Great Western at Brighton. So I believe the documented 390 inch average snowfall up there vs. 300 at Summit House or the upper elevations of Canyons and Deer Valley.

and Solitude blows it away in snowfall.

The other side of 9990 is BCC - Looking at Google Maps, it's about 2 miles from the peak to Solitude's parking lot. And if the DayBreak lift had been built for accessing great terrain instead of luxury homes (ie, extended up to the top of the ridge), it would be even closer to Solitude. And the whole Dreamscape area seems to get tons of snow. Maybe Jupiter really does get the most snow on the Park City side of the ridge, but 9990 can't be far behind...

Since much of it is set up along a set of ridge spine, it skis short and you get a New England-like 1000 feet of vertical with traverses at the top and runouts at the bottom. Many of the high traffic intermediate groomers are good ol' New England hardpack.

This might be a bit simplistic - but Deer Valley and PCMR each only have 1 lift with more than 1500 vertical. The rest are under 1400 (not counting the rarely used Ski Team lift at PCMR). Why? Because they suffer even worse from the spine effect than the Canyons does! The Canyons currently has 4 lifts with more than 1500 vertical (Condor, Tombstone, 9990 and Dreamscape). The new Orange Bubble and Iron Mountain lifts should provide two more. That will make six different peaks all with a decent amount of vertical to find some good terrain.

Talisker has promised many more "exciting" announcements in the future. As a skier, I hope these are focused around more improvements on the mountain (more lifts, more restaurants/bathrooms, more terrain, etc) and less about real estate development/private clubs/etc. Ultimately, they need to make it work as a business. I think they are off to the right start. I hope it continues.

 

[Marc_C]

The Grand America

Grand Summit.

With the amount of percocet in me, i was lucky to remember there was grand in the name....

 

[Admin]

With the amount of percocet in me, i was lucky to remember there was grand in the name....

:lol:

So, surgery's over?

And biny, thanks for taking so much time to offer your perspective. Welcome to Liftlines, I hope that you'll become a regular participant.

 

[Marc_C]

With the amount of percocet in me, i was lucky to remember there was grand in the name....

:lol:

So, surgery's over?

yep...yesterday am actually, but the fun stuff has just begun...the swelling, pain, figuring out how to bathe, figuring out how to open jars, eventual pt....and this one handed typing sucks.

 

[Admin]

but the fun stuff has just begun...the swelling, pain, figuring out how to bathe, figuring out how to open jars, eventual pt....and this one handed typing sucks.

Liquor goes great with percocet.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Why? Because they suffer even worse from the spine effect than the Canyons does!

Very true IMHO. The reason I much prefer Snowbasin to any of them.

(Deer Valley is actually the lowest of the three)

Also true, but offset by the highest proportion of north facing terrain.

the snow difference is negligible (at least that has been my experience)

Two of the raps on the Canyons in this area are valid IMHO. The base area is definitely the sketchiest in natural snow, though not that relevant since very little of the skiing is down there. But most of those spines face east and thus have south facing sides with variable (or thin, in low snow years) snow conditions. The assertion about 9990 having as much snow as Jupiter might be true, though Jupiter's terrain is more expansive and easier to lap.

 

[socal]

Someone put together a map on google maps showing the locations of lifts, thought you guys might find it useful http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...13,-111.555347&spn=0.090571,0.181789&t=p&z=13

 

[Tony Crocker]

That is a useful map. it shows very clearly that a higher proportion of The Canyons lifts are up east facing slopes vs. more north at all the other areas. The topo lines show that Iron Mountain is a potentially more interesting addition that I thought.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Someone put together a map on google maps showing the locations of lifts, thought you guys might find it useful http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...13,-111.555347&spn=0.090571,0.181789&t=p&z=13

That's a great map, though I'm almost certain that his placement of the Daybreak, Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher lifts is incorrect. IIRC, what he depicts as Daybreak is actually Dreamcatcher. What he depicts as Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher don't exist. The Dreamscape summit is the same as Dreamcatcher, but it's base is to the NW in the relatively flat basin between that peak and Peak 5. It is within that flat basin where Daybreak begins and ends, primarily serving real estate instead of running up to the top of the ridge at 9800' where it could have served some real terrain with what are likely high snowfalls due to proximity to BCC.

As a quick follow up on the base area stupidity, I think Tony has it right in that many top flight areas (Vail, Snowmass, Heavenly, Mammoth, Copper, etc..) have multiple entry points. Talisker would be well advised to keep some sort of tombstone area entry point in their long-range planning. While many ski areas have morphed into glorified real-estate ventures, I'm not aware of any successful ones that have started with real estate first and the skiing as an afterthought. Think about it. What ski areas began more as real estate plays than ski areas? Tamarack. Moonlight Basin. Yellowstone. Canyons. Haystack. What do all of these have in common? If you don't get the skiing right, you will never achieve the critical mass necessary to sustain a viable real-estate play. While Intrawest are known for grafting massive RE plays onto their ski areas, at least they got the skiing part right for the most part. The places where they didn't, or couldn't, get it right are in the most trouble or have been sold - like Mountain Creek. Talisker would be well-advised to focus solely on improving the skiing experience for the next 2-3 seasons before sinking a dime into the RE end of the business. With the amount of terrain, the convenience of access, and the real ski town of Park City being so close, Canyons could be a legit contender for Joe Skier.

 

[Admin]

Tamarack. Moonlight Basin. Yellowstone. Canyons. Haystack. What do all of these have in common?

I don't agree that the last two fit the list. Both have a history as solely ski areas from the 1960s.

 

[EMSC]

I'm almost certain that his placement of the Daybreak, Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher lifts is incorrect. IIRC, what he depicts as Daybreak is actually Dreamcatcher. What he depicts as Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher don't exist.

Agree. One obvious give away is the non-existent lift locations show as topping out on NFS land while Canyons has purposely avoided all NFS land. Which explains the crappy lift alignment relative to the best upper mtn skiing ridges as well (aka why does only the 9990 lift go to the top? well because it's the only private land on the ridge lines where the approvals are 'easy'). They'd have to go through NEPA obviously for putting a second lift up to the short but sweet looking ridge line drops and chutes.

What ski areas began more as real estate plays than ski areas?

Might want to add Beaver Creek to that list. Also Battle Mountain in Minturn which has yet to turn a shovel of dirt...

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Tamarack. Moonlight Basin. Yellowstone. Canyons. Haystack. What do all of these have in common?

I don't agree that the last two fit the list. Both have a history as solely ski areas from the 1960s.

Fair point, but as for the Canyons, it was brought back from the dead by ASC primarily as a RE venture. They didn't graft a RE play onto an existing, successful resort. With respect to Haystack, wasn't it a RE play from the very beginning (not talking about the latest attempt)? Maybe I'm just misremembering but I thought that with the golf course and plentiful base area RE, it was always a RE-driven hill from its first incarnation.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

I'm almost certain that his placement of the Daybreak, Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher lifts is incorrect. IIRC, what he depicts as Daybreak is actually Dreamcatcher. What he depicts as Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher don't exist.

Agree. One obvious give away is the non-existent lift locations show as topping out on NFS land while Canyons has purposely avoided all NFS land. Which explains the crappy lift alignment relative to the best upper mtn skiing ridges as well (aka why does only the 9990 lift go to the top? well because it's the only private land on the ridge lines where the approvals are 'easy'). They'd have to go through NEPA obviously for putting a second lift up to the short but sweet looking ridge line drops and chutes.

The frustrating thing is that they do own some other land up on that ridge but have refused to build lifts there in favor of lifts like Daybreak in the flats serving RE.

Might want to add Beaver Creek to that list. Also Battle Mountain in Minturn which has yet to turn a shovel of dirt...

Battle Mountain sort of supplements my point. I doubt that anything ever gets built there. As for BC, perhaps that's an exception, but my sense is that while there is plenty of RE in the main base, the largest RE plays there are centered around Bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead. BC at least built the goods first (Birds of Prey and eventually Grouse Mtn) before moving whole hog into RE via the aforementioned "expansions". also, when you are owned by Vail and have it as your next door neighbor, you begin with a lot of attributes that other mtns don't have.

 

[Tony Crocker]

as for the Canyons, it was brought back from the dead by ASC primarily as a RE venture. They didn't graft a RE play onto an existing, successful resort.

Agree. The old Park West was mostly in the marginal snowfall zone and even less competitive vs. other Utah areas. Speaking of real estate plays, how about Deer Valley? Real estate is now embedded in close to half the ski terrain there.

Yellowstone Club was designed to add skiing (and summer mountain activities) onto the golf country club model. Lots of golf country clubs are also real estate plays and some of them have run into trouble. But as we know Yellowstone's problems were not because of the real estate there.

 

[mbaydala]

All Utah resorts have their own set of Pros and Cons. As someone who has only lived in Utah for 4 years, the Canyons has far more pros than it does cons, especially for someone who lives in Park City. The Canyons biggest pro, the access to the backcountry. I'm not sure who actually determines where a backcountry gate can be placed but I feel like the Canyons needs to get some credit for this? If anyone has that answer, I'd love to hear it as well. For all those people that say the Canyons has bad snow check out the following photos taken at the Canyons this year. Mind you 50% were taken in the Backcountry, (Square Top, Dutch Draw, and Peak 5) but the rest were inbounds. The snow felt great to me! In todays age of huge rockered powder skies 9 inches of pow at the Canyons skis the same as 15 inches at Alta. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=75817&id=1231002422&l=39bc35b663