Is the ski resort model dead?

Here's a great read on the home mountain "Hausberg" in Europe. A great example of being community based.

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/10/24 ... -hausberg/

“A Hausberg, or ski commons, is a place to re-affirm the roots of the sport, born not of commerce, but of athletic and aesthetic idealism, something that’s done not for money but for love, for the physical ideal it represents, pure and simple.”
 
I know I promised to stay away, but I miss you guys.

As confirmed by today's Vail long term lease of Northstar (owned by CNL), a consolidation trend is taking place in the ski industry.

Here is a document prepared by Hunter Sykes that breaks down who owns the corporate ski resorts, prior to todays announcement. Be sure to change Northstar to no be managed by Vail, not Booth Creek.

http://mountainridersalliance.files.wor ... sorts1.doc

It will be interesting to see how consolidation will affect the ski resort model.
 
That's hardly a new phenomenon. It's been happening for years under not only VR but also Powdr, Peaks, etc. Meanwhile players like Booth Creek and Intrawest are selling assets like ASC did.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
mobile.png
 
The one I don't quite get is CNL. What's in it for them buying all these in-place Intrawest villages and also buying ski resorts and leasing them back to prior owners? Some kind of tax deal maybe? But the timing of many CNL purchases near the top of the real estate market strikes me as spectacularly bad for them and perhaps astute on the part of owners like McCoy who were selling.
 
Tony Crocker":458dvmhe said:
The one I don't quite get is CNL. What's in it for them buying all these in-place Intrawest villages and also buying ski resorts and leasing them back to prior owners? Some kind of tax deal maybe? But the timing of many CNL purchases near the top of the real estate market strikes me as spectacularly bad for them and perhaps astute on the part of owners like McCoy who were selling.

Mr C and I don't always see eye to eye but I was wondering the same thing.
 
Tony Crocker":22jkwy8a said:
The one I don't quite get is CNL. What's in it for them buying all these in-place Intrawest villages and also buying ski resorts and leasing them back to prior owners? Some kind of tax deal maybe?

Maybe. Depending on their ability to accelerate depreciation and the terms of the lease agreements, they could be coming out OK. That said, their timing has been pretty awful as you note.
 
Mike Bernstein":3t9iszk9 said:
Tony Crocker":3t9iszk9 said:
The one I don't quite get is CNL. What's in it for them buying all these in-place Intrawest villages and also buying ski resorts and leasing them back to prior owners? Some kind of tax deal maybe?

Maybe. Depending on their ability to accelerate depreciation and the terms of the lease agreements, they could be coming out OK. That said, their timing has been pretty awful as you note.

CNL has a "Lifestyle Properties" division. Golf courses. Amusement Parks. Ski areas. The ski areas are just one slice of a very diversified portfolio. Relative to other things CNL owns, the ski areas are kind of lost in the noise. It's not like the Boyne holdings cost big bucks to buy. REITs are "buy and hold" so they have a much longer term view than a public company that has to show quarterly profit.
 
Thanks for the support rfarren!
For more information on ticket prices for the Epic Pass this year (which we agree is a great deal and heavily subsidized already) go to epicpass.com.
Ski Towns have and will always be full of soul - the passion for the sport is what drives the economy in any town and with that - soul abounds.
Also - for more information on what Vail Resorts is doing to help the environment, check out http://snow.to/Tg2j3
 
Here's the second installment from the creators of RESORTing to Madness.

http://mrablog.com/2010/10/26/resorting ... ss-part-2/

"The “ski area arms race” of the past two decades is indicative of a mature ski industry characterized by escalating resort consolidation, increasingly powerful resort companies and intense competition for a stagnant market. The tools used to attract consumers consist of offering the latest in luxury on-slope amenities, expanded terrain, enhanced “experiences” such as more grooming and guided “slack-country” tours and, most importantly, ski-in ski-out real estate. Resorts by definition are about real estate and the associated amenities such as skiing exist to increase the value of the real estate offerings. On the other hand, ski areas are in the uphill transportation business, and there are few of these left."
 
even while overall skier numbers continue to decline.
Untrue, as I've mentioned several times.
No longer will the primary market for real estate be the Baby Boomers, but Generation X, a cohort that is not all that pleased with the excess, attributes and attitude of the master planned community model
This part I agree with. Too many developers have been chasing the high end dollar. If you've got a special product, like Vail or Whistler, you'll attract enough of those people to make some sense. Not so if you're Tamarack. This is really just a part of the overall real estate bubble of this decade IMHO. The vast majority of ski areas should survive just fine. I'm not shedding any tears for the investors/developers who came in at the top. Aspen/Pebble Beach/Hawaii offered the same quality vacation experiences after the Japanese buyers of the 1980's lost their shirts buying them as before that bubble.
 
Tony Crocker":3og8j4r9 said:
even while overall skier numbers continue to decline.
Untrue, as I've mentioned several times.
No longer will the primary market for real estate be the Baby Boomers, but Generation X, a cohort that is not all that pleased with the excess, attributes and attitude of the master planned community model
This part I agree with. Too many developers have been chasing the high end dollar. If you've got a special product, like Vail or Whistler, you'll attract enough of those people to make some sense. Not so if you're Tamarack. This is really just a part of the overall real estate bubble of this decade IMHO. The vast majority of ski areas should survive just fine. I'm not shedding any tears for the investors/developers who came in at the top. Aspen/Pebble Beach/Hawaii offered the same quality vacation experiences after the Japanese buyers of the 1980's lost their shirts buying them as before that bubble.

I think that blanket statements about values and purchasing decisions of Baby Boomers vs Gen X vs Gen Y are nonsense. There are lots of frugal and minimalist Boomers. There are lots of Gen X-ers with McMansions with a mortgage larger than the property is worth and maxed-out credit cards who would leap at the opportunity to purchase ski-in/ski-out at a ski resort if they could afford it. As Boomers die, there is a pile of inherited money that Generation Y is going to dump into both primary housing and vacation homes.

If you're in the top 1.5% of household income ($250K+) or you inherit a pile of cash from somebody who was in that earnings bracket and you want to buy into the lifestyle, you're going to do it regardless of your year of birth.
 
RESORTing, Part 2 wrote:
even while overall skier numbers continue to decline.

Untrue, as I've mentioned several times.

Hi Tony,

Actually it is true. A common misconception is that skier visits and and skier numbers are the same thing when in fact they are not. Skier numbers are the total number of people that identify themselves as skiers (defined as skiers, snowboarders, telemarkers, etc) while skier visits are the number of times each skier goes skiing. Judging from your previous comments, you are confusing these two. While increasing skier visits make it look like skiing is becoming more popular, the truth is that fewer skiers are skiing more often, and they are growing older all the while. The Kottke Report tends to shine a happy glow on the increasing trend of skier visits but ignores this decline in actual participants. The overall 20 year trend has been a decrease in skier numbers –the actual number of people that ski– but an increase in skier visits or the number of times that these same people go skiing in a year. To quote a report I compiled in 2008 "Between 1990 and 2006, the number of snowboarders has increased from 1.5 million to 5.2 million –an increase of 288%– and has dropped from a high of 6.3 million riders in the 2004/2005 season to 5.2 million in the 2006/2007 season. In this same time period, the number of skiers has decreased from 11.4 million to 6.4 million, a decrease of 44%. Overall, total skier/snowboarder numbers have decreased from 12.9 million participants in 1990 to 11.6 million participants in 2006, an overall industry loss of 10.1%. (This decrease is quite noticeable from the preceding 2006/2007 season when there were a reported 12.9 million skier/snowboarder participants. This may be due to participants exiting the sport(s) as a result of the poor winter conditions of that particular season, as reflected in the corresponding drop in total skier visitor numbers to 55.9 million from the 58.9 in the 2004/2005 season). This data comes directly from the National Ski & Snowboard Retailers Association: Snowboarding and Skiing Participation report published in 2006.

As for the suggestion that younger participants are replacing the Baby Boomers, the ski industry's data says otherwise:
The average age of participants has risen steadily from 33.2 in 1997/1998 to 36.5 in 2006/07. Specifically, since 1997/98, the proportion of visitors aged 45 to 54 has increased from 14.0 % to 19.9 %; the proportion of visitors aged 55 to 64 has almost doubled from 4.6 % to 9.2 %; and the proportion of visitors aged 65 and older has also almost doubled, from 2.4% to 3.8%. Currently, skiers of the Baby Boom generation, and their parents, make up 33% of all skiers. Conversely, the proportion of visitors aged 35 to 44 has declined by 3%, visitors aged between 25 to 34 have declined by 5.6%, and visitors aged 15 to 24 have declined 3%.
(Source: National Ski Areas Association: 2007/08 National Demographic Study; 2008) Now granted that these figures are a few years out of date, but they are still indicative of the state of the industry. The long-term trend of increasing skier visits has much more to do with the following factors: demographics, the health of the economy, snowfall, pass pricing and international tourism.

Demographically, the Baby Boomers, being the cohort that skiing and related real estate is most marketed to, have the wealth, time and investment that allows, or impels them to maximize their time on the slopes. They are (or were before the current economic malaise) the wealthiest generation in history, benefiting not only from being in mature, well paying jobs during the height of the economic boom years of the late 90's and early 2000's, but from also having been the beneficiaries of the largest transfer of inter-generational wealth from their parents. They have, or had, the means with which to buy the ski-in ski-out condo and afford the costs of taking a few trips to the mountains every season. These investments also impelled them to continue to spend their time at ski resorts rather than to other destinations as they already owned and were paying for these assets. Furthermore, Baby Boomers are nearing retirement – and for many, already have retired– and for the most part no longer have the expenses of raising families since most of their children are living independent lives. This provides them with the time and the disposable income to ski more often.

Economically, data suggests that skier visits follow the ups and downs of the economy. Using the numbers from last year's Kottke Report (which you cited in an earlier post) on skier visits, it is clear that there is a correlation between the two: 1980 recession saw skier visits drop from 48.2 million in 1979-80 to 39.7 million in 80-81; the 81-83 recession saw a decrease from 50.7 million in 81-82 to 46.9 million in 82-83; the 90-91 recession saw a decrease from 50.0 million in 89-90 to 46.7 million in 90-91; the 2001-02 recession saw a decrease from 57.3 million in 2000-01 to 54.4 million in 2001-02 and our current "depression" saw a decrease from 60.5 million in 2007-08 to 57.3 million in 2008-2009 before recovering to last year's 59.7 million. Being that skiing is such an expensive pastime, it is one of the first activities to be abandoned when money is tight.

Snowfall is a huge factor in skier visits. Another analysis I did compared skier visits to terrain expansions and snowfall totals at 20 areas in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico over a 10 year period. The results showed that inmost of the resorts in the study, there was a much stronger correlation between snowfall totals and skier visits than any other factor. My personal experience backs this up as work would definitely be slower when we had a poor snow season, no matter what resort I was working in.

Pass pricing, especially in the case of Vail Resorts, has had a huge impact on overall national and Colorado skier visit numbers. Before Vail Resorts introduced the Buddy Pass –now Epic Pass– program in the 90's, most season passes were prohibitively expensive. This would keep many of the day skiers from the Colorado's Front Range from skiing VR's mountains more than a few times a year as they would instead head to the cheaper areas that were in the "uphill transportation business" such as Loveland and Eldora. With the low price and access to multiple VR owned mountains, more Front Range skiers are skiing more often, and the trial and retention rate for new skiers from the Front Range is increasing (which is great news as the industry doesn't try hard enough at producing new skiers in my estimation). VR now sells in excess of 130,000 Epic Passes each season (last data I have from 2007-2008), mostly to Front Range skiers, that give access to A-Basin, Breckenridge, Keystone, Vail and Beaver Creek as well as Heavenly, and now Northstar. Even thought VR doesn't share how many of their skier visits at their resorts are Epic Pass holders, logic dictates that they make up a pretty hefty number of visits.

International destination skiers are a large and growing segment of the skier visit numbers nationally. Direct flights from Europe to Denver and Salt Lake city make travel easy for Western Europeans and they are increasingly taking advantage of the cheaper dollar more consistent snow pack of North America. This past year, Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA) reported that international business was up 6.5 percent for the association's members, and this doesn't included Vail Resorts' mountains, among which is Breckenridge, long a favorite of British skiers (I used to have to have to make pounds-to-stone conversion charts in our shops so we could rent to the Brits even back in the 90's). There is also a large influx of Latin American skiers that make the trip to the Rockies for skiing and in my years working and teaching in Vail and Beaver Creek, there would be times when a 1/3 or more of our guests were Spanish or Portuguese speaking. All of these international visitors add to the total skier visits but aren't added to the total number of skiers in the US. Last year, CSCUSA stated that international visitors played a large part in lifting the skier visits in the state above those of the previous year. While is may be tempting to count on increase in international visitors as an increase in skier numbers, this isn't the case. International skiers visits are dependent on the strength of the dollar, political and social issues in their home countries, price of air transport, US visa restrictions and processes, and the quantity and quality of snow closer to home.

Lastly, as if I haven't gone on long enough, here are the most recent demographic figures from the latest National Ski and Snowboard Retailer's Association's report:
2.6% of the US population considers themselves skiers/snowboarders.
62.7% are male, 37.3% female.
77.2% make more than $50,000 a year.
46.1% make more than $100,000 a year.
66.3% are older than 25.
Mean age is 34.7.
56.1% have children under the age of 18.

Please keep in mind, I'm not anti-skiing or anti-ski industry, hell, I've worked in it for more than 20 years and started skiing at Eldora when I was 2 1/2. I want people to learn to ski, to love it and to keep doing it, but the direction that the industry, specifically the real-estate/resort model, is going it will be to expensive and exclusive, and the landscapes in which it occurs too messed up, to be much fun.

Cheers,
Hunter
 
Thank you for responding Hunter.

I didn't have time to response to Tony's skier increase comment as I already said, twice, that the demographic would pose a problem in the years to come.
 
Geoff":30fte6wk said:
Tony Crocker":30fte6wk said:
even while overall skier numbers continue to decline.
Untrue, as I've mentioned several times.
No longer will the primary market for real estate be the Baby Boomers, but Generation X, a cohort that is not all that pleased with the excess, attributes and attitude of the master planned community model
This part I agree with. Too many developers have been chasing the high end dollar. If you've got a special product, like Vail or Whistler, you'll attract enough of those people to make some sense. Not so if you're Tamarack. This is really just a part of the overall real estate bubble of this decade IMHO. The vast majority of ski areas should survive just fine. I'm not shedding any tears for the investors/developers who came in at the top. Aspen/Pebble Beach/Hawaii offered the same quality vacation experiences after the Japanese buyers of the 1980's lost their shirts buying them as before that bubble.

I think that blanket statements about values and purchasing decisions of Baby Boomers vs Gen X vs Gen Y are nonsense. There are lots of frugal and minimalist Boomers. There are lots of Gen X-ers with McMansions with a mortgage larger than the property is worth and maxed-out credit cards who would leap at the opportunity to purchase ski-in/ski-out at a ski resort if they could afford it. As Boomers die, there is a pile of inherited money that Generation Y is going to dump into both primary housing and vacation homes.

If you're in the top 1.5% of household income ($250K+) or you inherit a pile of cash from somebody who was in that earnings bracket and you want to buy into the lifestyle, you're going to do it regardless of your year of birth.

Geoff,

The statement isn't mine, it came directly from the Kelsey Norden Resort Real Estate Consumer Survey (which I cited) which was commissioned by the industry and conducted at resorts with resort guests as the respondents. As there aren't many skiers in any generation, perhaps the Gen X and Gen Y skiers have a differing outlook on the need for exclusive, luxurious, amenity driven and very expensive but low quality real estate. I know that this Gen Xer does...

For the entire Kelsey survey, go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39230133/Kels ... mer-Survey
 
Whoops, let me re-phrase that Geoff. This last was a paraphrase of what the report stated, but not a direct quote... Again, I refer you to the report.

Hunter
 
Da wood":38gouv0p said:
Lastly, as if I haven't gone on long enough, here are the most recent demographic figures from the latest National Ski and Snowboard Retailer's Association's report:
2.6% of the US population considers themselves skiers/snowboarders.
62.7% are male, 37.3% female.
77.2% make more than $50,000 a year.
46.1% make more than $100,000 a year.
66.3% are older than 25.
Mean age is 34.7.
56.1% have children under the age of 18.

Please keep in mind, I'm not anti-skiing or anti-ski industry, hell, I've worked in it for more than 20 years and started skiing at Eldora when I was 2 1/2. I want people to learn to ski, to love it and to keep doing it, but the direction that the industry, specifically the real-estate/resort model, is going it will be to expensive and exclusive, and the landscapes in which it occurs too messed up, to be much fun.

Cheers,
Hunter

So 46.1% of the skiing population has the means to buy a skiing vacation home and most of those have children. When the boomers die, that's going to unlock yet another huge pile of money as Gen Y sells off the parental Florida retiree residence and buys something at a ski resort. Don't kid yourself. That wealth isn't evaporating as it gets passed to the next generation. There will be plenty of slopeside condos purchased with that money.

Developers will build to their market. Not everybody can buy into Yellowstone Club. If a resort is overbuilt, there will be plenty of good value to be found on the resale market. Last I knew, housing at the bottom of a ski resort doesn't change the terrain or the amount of natural snow the place sees. I know plenty of people on beer budgets who ski at expensive resorts. Nobody is making you buy a million dollar slopeside home. At worst, it makes parking inconvenient as parking lots get turned into slopeside housing.

I grew up in a family that had a vacation home 20 minutes off-mountain. I had just as much fun as a kid with a ski-in/ski-out place. His Editorship must be about 20 minutes off-mountain in Salt Lake City. I doubt he resents the jillionaires who own the little bit of ski-in/ski-out at Snowbird. He's livin' the life. I think this is all about "resenting those damned rich people". If you've worked in the ski industry for 20 years, chances are quite good that you're not in the high 6 figures income bracket where you can buy ski-in/ski-out housing. I don't understand why you apparently resent the life decisions that you and others have made.

Edited:
I'd also add that the drop-off in the number of younger skiers is linked to our economic times. Wealth has become more stratified over the last 20 years. Unions have declined. Manufacturing jobs have been pushed off-shore. Increasingly, other parts of the economy are drifting off-shore as well. If you add a lot of value, you are well compensated. If you have skills that can be replaced by someone in China or India at $20K/year, your job vaporizes or you take a big pay cut. There are still plenty of wealthy people and the demand for luxury real estate isn't going to go away. There is a much smaller upper middle class so the market for the timeshare and the 1 bedroom condo that created Whistler Village has been replaced by a market for much higher end housing. In the face of declining income, the big barrier to entry with skiing for the middle class is transportation. An eco-friendly ski area with a windmill out in the middle of nowhere is completely inaccessible to the middle class. It either needs to sit right next to a major airport with access to discount carriers (Salt Lake City springs to mind) or you need to have superb public transporation between the major metro areas and the ski areas. (French Alps spring to mind... nothing in the US since there is no public transporation infrastructure) If you want to open up skiing to the masses, find a way to get them cheaply and conveniently to the ski area.
 
Whoa there Geoff!

Where did I state or infer that I am
"resenting those damned rich people".
?!? The only thing I resent is the knee jerk reactions of someone that thinks that they know me based on the information I present –from ski industry sources, mind you– that there are some serious issues in regards to the future of the ski resort industry (by the way, our household income puts us in 46% bracket and I don't resent myself). Read the report and you'll find that many prospective buyers and current owners aren't that excited about the way things have been and the products that they've been offered or have bought. Using your logic, those respondents that feel this way must also resent "those damn rich people," even though many are those "damn rich people..."

As to your assertion that there will be lots of Gen X and Y skiers out there waiting to snatch up more luxury 2nd homes, I disagree. There will be some, certainly, but as the skiing population ages and shrinks –as it has been doing for quite some time– there will be more supply than demand, especially if luxury resort development picks up to its pre-recession levels. As to the loss of new skiers due to economic factors that is only a partial truth. The loss in the younger demographic has been occurring for a long time, even during the boom years of the 90's. It has multiple factors, the foremost being the changing expectations and desires of the younger generations. Skiing has to compete with theme parks, cheap package deals to Caribbean beach resorts and Hawaii and, of all places, Las Vegas. A common complaint among my teenage clients in Vail was that they would rather be someplace warm and hated that their parents dragged them out to ski in Colorado, and they aren't alone in this outlook. With the ease of traveling to warm places where there is no equipment, no cold, no discomfort, and, to those newly on their own, much cheaper
destinations, it's no surprise that skiing among the young is losing its appeal. The fact that the middle class is shrinking (a very worrisome trend on its own) means that there will be even less interest among potential skiers since less people will be able to afford to ski.

As for developers building for the market, I think that it's pretty clear these days that this is not the case currently. If it was, there would not have been a housing bubble and there wouldn't be thousands of new homes sitting empty across the country. Ski resort development is no exception. Developers were building with the hopes of selling to a pretty small niche and they oversupplied the market. This is one reason why Intrawest has been in so much trouble this past year. When they are selling condos in their villages for 30%-40% below their initial prices, even in the mid 2000's (The Village at Solitude being an example), clearly there isn't enough demand. If Tamarack were able to sell, and pre-sell, all of their real estates offerings, they would have probably met their debt obligations and would still be in business.

It's great that you had the opportunity to ski so much growing up and learned to love it (I assume). I did is well but from living in ski towns as a kid, and I would like to see those towns and the residents in them survive into succeeding generations. Want to see what happens when real estate speculative development doesn't work? Ask around McCall Idaho and the owners of Tamarack's properties, the towns of La Veta and Chuchara Colorado, the employees and investors of Ski Rio in New Mexico. If the ski industry goes back to the way things were in the heady days of the 90's and the first 8 years of this decade, we may well... make that certainly, see more of this. I want there to be more younger skiers, I want ski towns to thrive and be healthy communities, not hollow shells with 70% of the homes owned by absentee owners, I want to see all of the things that make skiing such an awesome activity continue. In short, I want the ski industry to succeed and I don't agree that it's success is tied to selling luxury real estate and $50,000 club memberships and that's the bottom line. What do you want?
 
Back
Top