Is the ski resort model dead?

[Patrick]

Would you prefer that skiing was only for those who live in the mountains or the super wealthy? By not catering to the masses you will marginalize the sport, and that I can promise you would be bad for business.

You live in NYC. Isn't their a variety of choices of restaurants for everyone? It's might be a caricature, but the last time I've been to NYC there were more than simply McDonald's, Burger Kings and Wendys. Skiing don't have the same taste. A way to find the masses is to cater to the greatest denominator, not always a good thing if it's the only option there is. Do you like listening to Céline Dion?

A quick, informal poll this afternoon of about 20 self identified skiers in my office generated a 75% favorable response. Six even said *every* chair-lift should be heated.

Good grief. #-o

I would imagine that the ski industry will need to expand the percentage of the population that skis to stay viable. The number of people that ski now in terms of percentage of population must be greater than ever before (although, admittedly I don't know that). What's to say that the sport's popularity won't continue to grow in the future?

Again, I don't know the US Demographic situation, but I know here in Canada, the ratio of retired population will be much greater and the active population will be lower in ratio and in term of numbers that it is today. So the industry will need to not only maintain the same proportion of skiers, but make serious inroads to attracts new skiers to make up for the numbers that will be leaving the sport. Remember, I'm talking in 25 years, Tony will be 82 and I'll be 70 then. :-(

 

[rfarren]

Again, I don't know the US Demographic situation, but I know here in Canada, the ratio of retired population will be much greater and the active population will be lower in ratio and in term of numbers that it is today. So the industry will need to not only maintain the same proportion of skiers, but make serious inroads to attracts new skiers to make up for the numbers that will be leaving the sport. Remember, I'm talking in 25 years, Tony will be 82 and I'll be 70 then. :-(

I think that's where the mega resort, with nice base villages and plenty of apres/shopping options, have their usefulness. Those places are often frequented by families, and are the types of places where a family might choose to go on a vacation even if they've never skied before.

You live in NYC. Isn't their a variety of choices of restaurants for everyone? It's might be a caricature, but the last time I've been to NYC there were more than simply McDonald's, Burger Kings and Wendys. Skiing don't have the same taste. A way to find the masses is to cater to the greatest denominator, not always a good thing if it's the only option there is. Do you like listening to Céline Dion?

I see what you're saying, and I'm right there with you. I too like a variety of ski areas, I just happen to think those who are saying the ski resort model has been bad for skiing are not realizing that it has done a lot to open up skiing to the masses. My major concerns when it comes to skiing is terrain and snow, everything afterwards is an afterthought. However, when I plan a trip with my wife it's better to go to a place like Whistler or Vail... or better yet, Chamonix, or St. Anton.

 

[Patrick]

I see what you're saying, and I'm right there with you. I too like a variety of ski areas, I just happen to think those who are saying the ski resort model has been bad for skiing are not realizing that it has done a lot to open up skiing to the masses. My major concerns when it comes to skiing is terrain and snow, everything afterwards is an afterthought. However, when I plan a trip with my wife it's better to go to a place like Whistler or Vail... or better yet, Chamonix, or St. Anton.

Chamonix and St.Anton (although I've been to Austria) are real towns, Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

I've never said that the Ski resort model is bad, but it came to a point of saturation in my books or a few others. I believe I've said somewhere in FTO that Intrawest did some good things overall at Tremblant, the problem I have is when everyone gets on the bandwagon and wants to copy it. The problem is when it become the model of choice. I've seen some many classic narrow Eastern trail massacred in my years of skiing, all in order to add snowmaking and/or control the skier traffic flow. Mountains had their own personality, now how many of them have similar trails and same feel to them.

 

[Geoff]

Your assumption presupposes that skier visits will decrease, which isn't guaranteed (I know your pop. argument as far as canada is concerned, but tremblant isn't just frequented by the quebecoise).

Basic demography. Unless the ski industry in the US (but I believe that they expect a decline in the next 15-20 years). I've read this somewhere, don't recall where.

I would imagine that the ski industry will need to expand the percentage of the population that skis to stay viable. The number of people that ski now in terms of percentage of population must be greater than ever before (although, admittedly I don't know that). What's to say that the sport's popularity won't continue to grow in the future?

The US is still experiencing population growth. I imagine that with US demographics, less Americans ski now as a fraction of the population than 25 years ago. We have had a mass migration to warmer, non-skiing parts of the country. If you live in Florida or Georgia, chances are pretty slim that you ski. We've also had a ton of wealth stratification over the last decade. The middle class is getting priced out of the sport and has lots of alternatives for spending their disposable income.

If you want to make skiing accessible to the middle class, you have to tackle transportation first. If you ski enough days where a season pass makes sense and live in a city a couple of hours from a ski area, transportation costs dwarf everything else. Of course, it ain't gonna happen. Affluent people don't want to sit on a bus with the masses. Ski areas want affluent people as customers since they drink in the bar and buy base lodge food. Ski mountains are a scarse resource and the eco-nazis and land costs near urban areas have pretty much ensured that we won't have any new ones. That makes skiing an activity for the affluent. A Mountain Riders Alliance ain't gonna change none o' that.

 

[Geoff]

I see what you're saying, and I'm right there with you. I too like a variety of ski areas, I just happen to think those who are saying the ski resort model has been bad for skiing are not realizing that it has done a lot to open up skiing to the masses. My major concerns when it comes to skiing is terrain and snow, everything afterwards is an afterthought. However, when I plan a trip with my wife it's better to go to a place like Whistler or Vail... or better yet, Chamonix, or St. Anton.

Chamonix and St.Anton (although I've been to Austria) are real towns, Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

All towns are artificial and were created. You're just setting an arbitrary creation date to declare the town "real" or not. I've been to Chamonix and St Anton. Neither looks anything like they did 50 years ago. They're all tourist towns kept alive by outside money. Without the tourists, they would crumble to dust since they have no other local economy.

 

[rfarren]

Chamonix and St.Anton (although I've been to Austria) are real towns, Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

All towns are artificial and were created. You're just setting an arbitrary creation date to declare the town "real" or not. I've been to Chamonix and St Anton. Neither looks anything like they did 50 years ago. They're all tourist towns kept alive by outside money. Without the tourists, they would crumble to dust since they have no other local economy.

Again, I agree with Geoff on this point. Having visited a bunch of those towns in Europe only 3 weeks back, I have to say that many of those towns are now just tourist towns by and large. Does it really matter for what purpose a town was created? I think the only thing that matters is how a town functions, so what's so different between St. Anton and Whistler?

 

[Patrick]

The US is still experiencing population growth. I imagine that with US demographics, less Americans ski now as a fraction of the population than 25 years ago. We have had a mass migration to warmer, non-skiing parts of the country. If you live in Florida or Georgia, chances are pretty slim that you ski. We've also had a ton of wealth stratification over the last decade. The middle class is getting priced out of the sport and has lots of alternatives for spending their disposable income.

If you want to make skiing accessible to the middle class, you have to tackle transportation first. If you ski enough days where a season pass makes sense and live in a city a couple of hours from a ski area, transportation costs dwarf everything else. Of course, it ain't gonna happen. Affluent people don't want to sit on a bus with the masses. Ski areas want affluent people as customers since they drink in the bar and buy base lodge food. Ski mountains are a scarse resource and the eco-nazis and land costs near urban areas have pretty much ensured that we won't have any new ones. That makes skiing an activity for the affluent. A Mountain Riders Alliance ain't gonna change none o' that.

I agree with the most of this, this is where the US demographic is different from the rest of the industrial countries in Canada and Western Europe and Japan. I explained a few demographics point like immigration and births a few pages prior. As for immigration growth, today's immigration comes from non-skiing countries went you compare to the immigration from the 20th century.

MRA isn't suppose to make skiing cheaper for the masses, but bring back an element and variety in the ski world.

Chamonix and St.Anton (although I've been to Austria) are real towns, Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

All towns are artificial and were created. You're just setting an arbitrary creation date to declare the town "real" or not. I've been to Chamonix and St Anton. Neither looks anything like they did 50 years ago. They're all tourist towns kept alive by outside money. Without the tourists, they would crumble to dust since they have no other local economy.

What I mean is that Chamonix and St Anton predates skiing and ski tourism. Of course, these towns are different than 50 years ago, every few town aren't. The economy wasn't initial based on tourism at these places and has shifted heavily to tourism. Not uncommon to many regional one industry town across North America. Aspen started off as a mining town, didn't it? Whistler and Vail didn't exist until someone decided to start a resort and built a village and lodging, many of it for non and temporary residences.

 

[Marc_C]

Chamonix and St.Anton (although I've been to Austria) are real towns, Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

Um, so what? They're real towns with a population base, government, services, et al. How they came to be is irrelevant.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Basic demography. Unless the ski industry in the US (but I believe that they expect a decline in the next 15-20 years). I've read this somewhere, don't recall where.

Then "they" need to explain why U.S. skier visits are trending up now after 2 flat decades, especially the 2nd highest ever in 2009-10 under adverse snow and economic conditions. I also think it's somewhat likely that the Alps will hold their own despite Western European demographics by attracting vacationers from newly affluent countries. Western Canada might get some help here too.

Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

But why were they created where they were? Because they have great terrain and snow, which is what most of us on this thread assert are top priorities! You can put Mammoth, Snowbird and many of the purpose built resorts in France in the same category.

Would you prefer that skiing was only for those who live in the mountains or the super wealthy? By not catering to the masses you will marginalize the sport, and that I can promise you would be bad for business.

I would also argue that those ski trains to quebec were more analogous to destination skiing trips to europe or out west nowadays.

Yes, skiing was far more of an elitist sport in the early days than it is now. I'd guess the most "populist" era was in the 1970's when I was getting started.

I would imagine that the ski industry will need to expand the percentage of the population that skis to stay viable. The number of people that ski now in terms of percentage of population must be greater than ever before (although, admittedly I don't know that). What's to say that the sport's popularity won't continue to grow in the future?

I'm sure that percentage grew rapidly through the 1970's, but I suspect more in line with population since. I suspect the current bump comes from the "boomer echo" generation hitting the prime "learn to ski" years.

Relative to cat skiing and heli-skiing, Silverton is a bargain. I don't think I have the skill level to use the place but I'd love to have something like that with a little less pitch where I could be one of the elite 80 shelling out $139.00 per day for a couple of weeks of skiing endless untracked.

Silverton has plenty of terrain at the "up to 30 degrees" that you like. The key caveat is the hiking: if you live at sea level you probably need 3-4 nights sleeping in Colorado first if you want to keep up at Silverton, and a week would be even better.

For now, Chile is my cheap alternative to get lots of untracked with little competition.

I don't know what you and Patrick are smoking when you're down there, but in terms of cost, quality and quantity of powder you're far better off at the second tier areas in Utah or interior B.C than anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

[Geoff]

What I mean is that Chamonix and St Anton predates skiing and ski tourism. Of course, these towns are different than 50 years ago, every few town aren't. The economy wasn't initial based on tourism at these places and has shifted heavily to tourism. Not uncommon to many regional one industry town across North America. Aspen started off as a mining town, didn't it? Whistler and Vail didn't exist until someone decided to start a resort and built a village and lodging, many of it for non and temporary residences.

A few farms that butt up against Mont Blanc isn't a "town". Chamonix didn't have a non-agricultural population base until tourism started. Of course, Chamonix has a 200+ year history of tourism. "Somebody" decided to build a guest house in 1770. "Somebody" decided to build a hotel in 1816. "Somebody" decided to create a mountain guide service in 1821.

 

[rfarren]

Chamonix and St.Anton (although I've been to Austria) are real towns, Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

Um, so what? They're real towns with a population base, government, services, et al. How they came to be is irrelevant.

Marc, I didn't say that, Patrick did. I said:

Does it really matter for what purpose a town was created? I think the only thing that matters is how a town functions, so what's so different between St. Anton and Whistler?

For all intents and purposes Chamonix and Whistler do exactly the same thing nowadays. Does it matter that a few building are older in Chamonix? One could even argue that Whistler is responsible urban planning (pedestrian areas with shopping, centralized village, etc...).

 

[Marc_C]

Marc, I didn't say that, Patrick did.

I knew that! I just cheese-titted the quotes. Fixed that post now.

 

[Geoff]

Marc, I didn't say that, Patrick did.

I knew that! I just cheese-titted the quotes. Fixed that post now.

I prefer Tater Tits.

 

[longshanks]

Marc, I didn't say that, Patrick did.

I knew that! I just cheese-titted the quotes. Fixed that post now.

I prefer Tater Tits.

Sesame Tits for me please...tater tits - kinda sounds like a snack

 

[soulskier]

One other component of the ski resort model that I see changing is ownership structure. Look at places like Mad River Glen, Bridger Bowl and Magic Mountain. They are different types of rider owned ski areas that are proving to be successful.

It will be interesting to watch Whistler try to raise $300 million to repay debt, while other entities, such as MRA, try to sell reasonably priced investment shares in a grass roots project.

 

[Geoff]

One other component of the ski resort model that I see changing is ownership structure. Look at places like Mad River Glen, Bridger Bowl and Magic Mountain. They are different types of rider owned ski areas that are proving to be successful.

It will be interesting to watch Whistler try to raise $300 million to repay debt, while other entities, such as MRA, try to sell reasonably priced investment shares in a grass roots project.

I suggest you read the fine print at Magic. It looks nothing like the Mad River Glen co-op. Jim Sullivan is selling non-voting shares in a corporation that leases Magic. The shares are mostly being sold to local vacation home owners who would be screwed if Magic shut the doors forever. Not one penny of the first million dollars they're raising is going to actually purchase the resort. It's for infrastructure like snowmaking the ski area needs to stay open. You can't do a Mad River Glen when you have to make snow to stay alive.

Whistler does two million skier visits. As a world class destination resort, their dollar per day yield per customer is quite high. Ignoring any real estate development, they have to do at least $200 million. That's not a bad business to buy in to.

 

[riverc0il]

One other component of the ski resort model that I see changing is ownership structure. Look at places like Mad River Glen, Bridger Bowl and Magic Mountain. They are different types of rider owned ski areas that are proving to be successful.

The MRG Coop is 15 years old now and hardly an indication of current trends. This is not a trend any ways. There is a saturation point on people willing to invest in unique niche ski operations. Magic is still trying to hit their minimum number of shares needed. How many ski areas are unique enough that skiers feel the need to protect them? I would never buy shares in resort coops because they are not unique areas like MRG. One problem with resorts is that they can not go backwards. The infrastructure is there. The trails have already been widened, the trees cut back, the lifts installed, etc. There is nothing left to protect at resorts, at least nothing that would warrant a coop.

I suggest you read the fine print at Magic. It looks nothing like the Mad River Glen co-op. Jim Sullivan is selling non-voting shares in a corporation that leases Magic. The shares are mostly being sold to local vacation home owners who would be screwed if Magic shut the doors forever. Not one penny of the first million dollars they're raising is going to actually purchase the resort. It's for infrastructure like snowmaking the ski area needs to stay open. You can't do a Mad River Glen when you have to make snow to stay alive.

It is important to understand why Magic is taking the route it is taking regarding how their shares are structured. If they had to sell 100% of the ownership as shares, they wouldn't be able to get enough share holders to buy in. They are still below their initial target (what is it, 300 or so?).

Geoff, you'll need to back up with some facts that the shares are only going to local vacation home owners. I know a few folks who have bought shares and they are either not vacation home owners at Magic, or if they are local vacation home owners, it is because they have truly made Magic Mountain their primary ski mountain, love the place, and are not buying shares for real estate purposes but rather because of their love for the mountain.

-----

Interesting that MRA is starting with Mount Abrams. This is a good starting place for them and the MRA model. Small, local hill with plenty of family involvement, after school programs, tubing, race leagues, etc. minimal lift infrastructure covering a wide variety of terrain including many natural snow trails, one base lodge, minimal snow making investment, etc. The MRA model works for small mom and pop areas that already have a small foot print, not a lot of skier visits, etc. So I propose a chicken vs egg question for MRA starting with an area like Mount Abrams, their model looks like it will work great at this type of area because this type of area already is within most of MRA's mission excepting carbon neutrality but they already have a relatively small footprint. I don't see this carrying over to bigger mountains. Would have been interested if MRA was in on Wildcat instead of Peaks. That would have been a true test of the model......

 

[Admin]

Interesting that MRA is starting with Mount Abrams.

Whoa, Nelly! Let's quash any rumors before they start. No one ever said MRA is starting with Mt. Abrams. Soulskier merely cited their proposed solar project as an example of sustainable energy.

 

[Patrick]

A lot of reading to catch and some major cleaning around the house...but I'll respond to this...

Basic demography. Unless the ski industry in the US (but I believe that they expect a decline in the next 15-20 years). I've read this somewhere, don't recall where.

Then "they" need to explain why U.S. skier visits are trending up now after 2 flat decades, especially the 2nd highest ever in 2009-10 under adverse snow and economic conditions.

Tony, this is the second time you got that line up in this thread and I've already given my 2 cents on it. ](*,)

From page 2...

I'm questioning the demographic doom and gloom after last year's Kottke report of 2nd highest U.S. skier visit numbers. With a bad economy AND a below average snow year how can this be? In general the skier visit trend is slightly increasing after two flat decades.

The demographic situation of the US versus the rest of the Western World is different. I believe that the US is the only country in that group where births are numerous enough for population replacement. Canada and Europe's births aren't enough to maintain the population at the current level and needs immigration to prevent a decline.

There are a studies out there that say that the average skier will ski more at the age of 40-45 that any other time in his life. My biggest season have been since I reached 40. Sure there are a few retirees that hit the 70-80 days mark, but many of them ski less than before or have stopped all together. My mom was an active people and continued to cross-country skied until she died last March, but her last day alpine skiing was when we brought Morgane to Tremblant at aged 3 (not sure on the age), so my mom would have been 66. I know that John Fripp continued skiing until 2 years ago when his wife thought that it wasn't such a good idea anymore, I believe that he was 87 at that time. The problem with John (from what I heard) is that he doesn't want to hold back and ski full out. I guess when you won the Alta Cup ahead of Alf Engen in the 40s, it's hard to slowdown. Now he joins his wife and spends his winters in Florida.

But the most important fact in my bloom and doom talk, is that I'm looking at 25 years down the road. I'm the first year (1965) of the non-boomers, in 25 years I'll be 70 ([censored] that is depressing) and wondering if Tony will ski as much then too? Many of the infrastructure being built now and in the last 10-15 years will be need of replacement.

So to get back to the point exactly as to why. The youngest baby boomer generation are in the mid to late 40s and the oldest are retiring and still skiing. As explained above, people in their 40s tend to ski more than in their 20s on average. Not an assumption, but a fact (don't have the source right now).

Population after the boomers are less numerous.

Boomers are still very active now, but once they start leaving the sport, skiers pop is going to dive. (again, I'm not a specialist on the exact US demographic situation and I know that it's different from Canada's, but I suspect that it's not that different to not see the decline.

Whistler and Vail are artificial and were created.

But why were they created where they were? Because they have great terrain and snow, which is what most of us on this thread assert are top priorities! You can put Mammoth, Snowbird and many of the purpose built resorts in France in the same category.

I'm talking about these specific places in the Alps and not France resorts in general. Chamonix, Val d'Isère pre-date the arrival of tourists in their valleys as Les Arcs and Val Thorens are not. Places like Chamonix and St.Anton have a greater proportion of local residents versus transient tourists or unoccupied (fulltime) condos and chalets. Locals can live in Chamonix, however locals in Whistler rarely have the money to stay in Whistler or without sharing a place, most locals are forced to stay in Pemberton.

For now, Chile is my cheap alternative to get lots of untracked with little competition.

I don't know what you and Patrick are smoking when you're down there, but in terms of cost, quality and quantity of powder you're far better off at the second tier areas in Utah or interior B.C than anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

At $150US/day traveling solo everything included (flights to beer and wine in restaurants virtually every nights) for my last trip, I'm sure I wouldn't able to compete with that out West unless I crash at someone for free and stay&eat at their place. A weekend drive to Stowe for skiing would be more expensive per day than my last trip to SA. :dead horse: And the skiing wasn't far from second rate.

 

[riverc0il]

Interesting that MRA is starting with Mount Abrams.

Whoa, Nelly! Let's quash any rumors before they start. No one ever said MRA is starting with Mt. Abrams. Soulskier merely cited their proposed solar project as an example of sustainable energy.

Ah, thanks for the quick correction! I saw that name kicked around a few times in the thread and made an erroneous conclusion, my bad!