Is the ski resort model dead?

[Geoff]

Since this thread is talking about the ski resort model, check out what's going on over at Berkshire East.
http://espn.go.com/action/blog?sport=fr ... st=5663794

They will be the second US Ski area to install a wind turbine, estimated ROI 7-9 years. They will be connected to the grid and buy back the power they consume. The Asst GM says they either get a check or a bill each month.

I predict we will see more ski resorts/areas investing into clean energy to reduce operating costs and/or create another revenue stream.

That works in Massholia because the state has all kinds of subsidies for wind power. Berkshire East is doing to cut their power costs, not out of some compelling desire to be green. If the state subsidies weren't there, there ain't no way Berkshire East is spending money on windmills. This is 100% a business decision that isn't available to most business that don't happen to own mountain tops.

Here are the programs going on in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Given the massive budget problems in the state and the threats of mass layoffs, it sort of begs the question that all this money is flowing out.
http://www.masscec.com/index.cfm/page/P ... /pid/11159

 

[Tony Crocker]

No coincidence Berkshire East is just down the road from Jiminy. It's replacing expensive power with government subsidized renewable, exactly like my solar panels. These economics will not fly in a Mountain State or Province where the local power is cheap and soulskier won't need that much of it anyway without snowmaking.

The MRA model is a niche, preferable to a small minority of skiers. A given region is barely able to support one of these. That would be MRG in New England, so no surprise Magic struggles to survive. Similar situation with Baldy vs. Waterman here in SoCal. Most regions that have the terrain/snow soulskier wants already have this type of area (like Monarch which Geoff mentioned). I had hoped that soulskier learned something from his Shames experience, but I'm not sure that's the case based upon this thread.

 

[Admin]

They will be the second US Ski area to install a wind turbine

Not the second in the U.S. That will make three just in New England after Jiminy and Bolton.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

With 120+ posts, many taking direct aim at soulskier:

pinko commie fag territory.

... I'm curious to see Admin's opinion piece. Being an outspoken fan of hills that have MRA leanings (Pajarito, Mont Grand Fonds, Monarch, Plattekill, Eldora, Hickory, etc.), I'd love to see soulskier make a go of something. I'm wondering if the Communist Manifesto-esque overtones (doesn't bother me, but apparently hit a nerve with many) will ultimately work against it?

 

[soulskier]

soulskier won't need that much of it anyway without snowmaking.

Exactly. So imagine all the excessive power that can be created (and sold) since the ski area will have very few lifts and no snowmaking. That, I believe, is going to be the key to sustainability.

I had hoped that soulskier learned something from his Shames experience, but I'm not sure that's the case based upon this thread.

Oh Tony, there's a lot more to the MRA and some of the key individuals than on this thread.

Besides, you haven't seen me bashing on other ski areas and their lack luster terrain this time around O

 

[soulskier]

Since this thread is talking about the ski resort model, check out what's going on over at Berkshire East.
http://espn.go.com/action/blog?sport=fr ... st=5663794

They will be the second US Ski area to install a wind turbine, estimated ROI 7-9 years. They will be connected to the grid and buy back the power they consume. The Asst GM says they either get a check or a bill each month.

I predict we will see more ski resorts/areas investing into clean energy to reduce operating costs and/or create another revenue stream.

That works in Massholia because the state has all kinds of subsidies for wind power. Berkshire East is doing to cut their power costs, not out of some compelling desire to be green. If the state subsidies weren't there, there ain't no way Berkshire East is spending money on windmills. This is 100% a business decision that isn't available to most business that don't happen to own mountain tops.

Massachutes isn't the only state with subsidies.

Being socially responsible can be both a business and environmental decision. Irregardless of why Berkshire East made the decision, they are doing their part to combat climate change, reduce their footprint, and lower their overhead.

Many, if not all ski areas, either own or lease the mountain top and/or other places to install wind turbine(s), so I am unclear about the comment "that it is not available to most businesses."

 

[longshanks]

soulskier is treading awfully close to pinko commie fag territory.

Nah. Just starry-eyed idealism with a steadfast refusal to accept the harsh realities of the business and a seeming willingness to impose his values as the "proper" values for a ski area.

No...you are both right on the money - soulskier's grass roots plan for a skiers utopia has always sounded like "pie in the sky" to me...the root word of utopia is from the greek "utopos" meaning... no where.

 

[soulskier]

I would like to share with you esteemed forum readers and posters a little clip and write up entitled "Resorting to Madness, Taking Back our Mountain Communities".

http://mrablog.com/2010/10/19/resorting ... es-part-1/

Both RTM and Hal Clifford's "Downhill Slide" are great examples of some of the cons of the current ski resort model.

 

[Geoff]

I would like to share with you esteemed forum readers and posters a little clip and write up entitled "Resorting to Madness, Taking Back our Mountain Communities".

http://mrablog.com/2010/10/19/resorting ... es-part-1/

Both RTM and Hal Clifford's "Downhill Slide" are great examples of some of the cons of the current ski resort model.

I love Skip King's review of Clifford's book. It, of course, applies equally to the MRA nonsense....

Downhill Slide will almost certainly play well among class warriors, ski town kvetches and the Chicken Little faction of the environmental movement. But if you're looking for objective analysis and honest debate over real issues, look elsewhere.
Hal Clifford questions almost every statement made by senior industry managers (backing many with snide comments), but treats pronouncements made by industry opponents - including some based on patently false assumptions - as gospel. In Clifford's world, ski resort managers are highly biased, but environmentalists, EPA staffers and disgruntled former ski resort and Forest Service employees are objective beyond question. This simply isn't the case. An honest assessment of the issues related to ski development would examine the motives and views of those opposed to mountain development as diligently as it does those who favor it.

Clifford assails, correctly, the piecemeal approach by which some ski areas obscured their growth plans during the permitting process. But he places all of the blame on resort operators and totally ignores the no-growth movement's direct responsibility for the creation of that tactic: subversion and abuse of regulatory and public comment processes. These abuses, which result in a staggeringly expensive and indeterminate permitting process, are well documented; it's no wonder that resorts attempted to keep their public and financial exposure small. He also ignores the fact that a growing number of progressive resorts now conduct their planning and permitting processes openly and invite environmental groups to participate. An objective book would at least acknowledge these efforts and give fair assessment of the questionable tactics used by some industry opponents.

Instead, Downhill Slide assumes that resorts and related real estate developments are uniformly creeping environmental disasters overrunning the mountains (in fact, skiing's footprint on the land is tiny; a fraction of one percent of the public lands in the mountain states are impacted by ski development). Clifford especially despises the concept of the modern ski resort village, which can be viewed as a response to the environmentally irresponsible sprawl that occurred around the base of ski areas decades ago. The new villages concentrate visitors on a small footprint, leaving more open land. So why isn't this a good thing? In Clifford's view, it's because they're built for transient guests, rather than providing a year-round haven for ski bums and colorful oddballs, and because developers can make money building them.

Clifford is correct in noting that some resort communities have essentially become second-home vacation retreats so expensive that resort workers can't afford to live there. Clearly, the industry could be more diligent in providing housing for staff. But resorts already do better job housing low-income workers than do most non-ski communities. Nor is anyone is forced to work (or live) in one.

The book's biggest stretch is the suggestion that social ills such as racism, alcoholism and domestic abuse in some areas of the Rockies are the fault of (and, by extension, the responsibility of) the ski industry. The argument is fallacious - both post hoc ergo propter hoc and as a splendid example of affirming the consequent. Clifford even implies that ski resorts are responsible for the presence of illegal aliens (apparently, that responsibilty falls to Vail, not the INS)- but cites not one case in which a ski resort ever recruited or hired an illegal alien, even by oversight.

Finally, Downhill Slide advances the premise that three companies, which between them represent about 30 percent of the US market - have driven the sport into a death spiral making the sport accessible only to the super-rich. This is utter nonsense. 30 percent of market share, split three ways, can't possibly conrol an entire industry. Besides, skiing has always been an expensive sport, and relative to disposable income - especially considering the ticket deals out there currently - skiing is actually more affordable to more people today than it was 50 years ago. That the sport hasn't grown (Clifford repeatedly hammers on that point) has far less to do with price than it does with with demographics, weather conditions over the past decade, competing recreation options and inept marketing.

Stripped to its essence, Downhill Slide is a plea - backed by fallacies of logic, appeals to pity, false dilemmas and half-baked environmental and social concerns - for things to be the way they used to be. Clifford openly states that he misses ski town life of old. Fair enough. But humans cannot freeze themselves in one moment in time. Such a freeze is what Clifford desires - and advocates - in holding up a handful of niche resorts in unique market situations as the model for how ski resorts should be run. That many ski areas which once operated in similar ways have gone out of business isn't mentioned. Nor is the fact that skiers and snowboarders vote with their wallets. Most clearly prefer the experience provided by larger resorts.

Clifford's prescription would kill skiing, not save it. He's welcome to patronize the niche resorts - indeed, they'd no doubt love his business. But to suggest their model is the only acceptable approach to skiing is arrogant beyond belief. So is Downhill Slide.

 

[Marc_C]

 

[EMSC]

I think Skip Kings discussion essentially in defense of the large resorts is pretty well stated.

However, way back in soulskiers initial MRA post I stated my general sense that he can survive as a small guy built mostly (not entirely) on the supposed wish list of items. It doesn't have to be only one way and one model for every ski sliding experience IMO. But there are a lot of complications going the way MRA is and soulskier will have to make very diligent choices to survive and will even have to be willing to compromise on some of the wish list (which pieces are somewhat specific to the location, etc... while others not so much).

That said, I think the hard reaction on these boards are related mostly to the MRA 'dictum' that the entire ski industry has it all wrong and none of the big resorts can or will ever survive, etc... Sorry not buying it. There is a place for several versions of business model in the industry, predicated on different sub markets, geographies and other particulars. Vail and Whistler aren't going away. I'm not quite sure why several posters seem to be only for the big resort model and poo-poo the entirety of soulskiers ideas; and also not sure why soulskier thinks that the big resort model is 100% dead and will never survive in any similar form. I suspect to some degree that both models will survive for some time to come. But with the vast majority of skiers going to the big resorts with many amenities and the small MRA types scratching out an OK living; I highly doubt the MRA model will suddenly proliferate into dozens of new ski areas nor in de-constructing the big resorts back to the 'olden days' either.

Why exactly does it have to be only one or the other model?

 

[Patrick]

the entire ski industry has it all wrong and none of the big resorts can or will ever survive, etc... Sorry not buying it.

Admin started the discussion and it was about "Is the ski resort model dead". The way I understood it, yes it is. Not saying that they won't survive, just saying that there might be an alternative way of thinking out there. A place were you don't have to imitate a model that dominated the ski industry as how to make skiing successful and was 'the' model to follow if you wanted to be successful.

why soulskier thinks that the big resort model is 100% dead and will never survive in any similar form.

I might be a pinko commie, but I don't think that soulskier is saying the other will never survive, but more that it isn't sustainable in the long run. Not exactly the same thing.

PS. I think I'm more on the side of Hal Clifford than Skip King's of the World. Again, I'm an econazi pinko commie...

 

[soulskier]

That said, I think the hard reaction on these boards are related mostly to the MRA 'dictum' that the entire ski industry has it all wrong and none of the big resorts can or will ever survive, etc... Sorry not buying it.

I do not think the entire ski industry has it wrong and that big resorts can't survive. What I do believe is that skiing has become mostly a rich man's sport and in many cases, has lost touch with it's clients. Furthermore, many locals have been driven out of their ski areas due to prices, leaving behind a sterile village that lacks soul. And most importantly, ski areas haven't exactly been treating the environment with the respect it deserves.

IMO, if a ski area creates enough energy to consume, they are just breaking even. That's like picking up your own trash. I think all ski areas owe it to mother nature to create more energy than they use. Then that would be making a real positive difference. I believe many of us can agree climate change is for real, and if we as an industry don't make some drastic changes, our children's children won't be enjoying our beloved sport and lifestyle.

Going back to the Mammoth case study, I started skiing there in the early 80's. 30 years later, with the exception of chair 22 (without it would be a 5 minute hike), there has been no terrain expansion, only many more lifts to bring the people to the same slopes. IMO, the overall ski experience has actually diminished due to skier traffic on the slopes. Again, I am not interested in fancy mid mountain lodges and $12 cheeseburgers, perfectly manicured groomers and 5 star lodging experiences. I (and many others) main focus is the skiing, specifically untracked snow and uncrowded slopes. I understand Mammoth had to expand to keep up with the client demand. As a result, that's one less cool ski area available for my generation and type of skiing style.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I believe many of us can agree climate change is for real

 

[longshanks]

I (and many others) main focus is the skiing, specifically untracked snow and uncrowded slopes....

and that Sir puts you firmly into a very small minority, kinda the lunatic fringe of Snow Sports. Sure very cool and the envy of many mortals but any "Ski business model" will have trouble surviving on those slim pickings - the numbers just don't support it. Oh, and you forgot to add Cheap Lift Tickets in the mix, it gives you a nice trifecta. Servicing a small elitist group vs. looking after the needs of the generic masses...that sounds like a private club and you will need a bunch of rich folk for that. And that crowd has no problem with $12 Burgers and $8 Lattes anyway...

As a result, that's one less cool ski area available for my generation and type of skiing style

Somebody better call Mammoth and let them know...come on, do you think they really care much about such a small fragment of the market?

 

[rfarren]

I do not think the entire ski industry has it wrong and that big resorts can't survive. What I do believe is that skiing has become mostly a rich man's sport and in many cases, has lost touch with it's clients. Furthermore, many locals have been driven out of their ski areas due to prices, leaving behind a sterile village that lacks soul. And most importantly, ski areas haven't exactly been treating the environment with the respect it deserves.

I disagree with you on this point. I would argue that skiing is about as affordable as it has ever been. Look at the epic pass in colorado. Locals can ski numerous mountains unlimited for less than $700 a year. How is that prohibitively expensive? Vacationers subsidize those cheap season passes, and if it weren't for those villages that lack soul many vacationers wouldn't come, and those season passes might jump up in price.

Furthermore, many locals have been driven out of their ski areas due to prices, leaving behind a sterile village that lacks soul. And most importantly, ski areas haven't exactly been treating the environment with the respect it deserves.

Give me an example of a town where the prices jumped up and left a sterile village lacking in soul. I can't really think of one on the top of my head as that town would have to predate the resort. Places like Breck, Telluride, Aspen, and Lake Placid come to mind, but they are anything but soulless. I can't really imagine that the locals are complaining about high real estate prices. In fact, I'm sure there are quite a few locals that bought real estate 20 or 30 years ago that extremely happy.

If you think about real estate in this way: Most towns in the mountains are in valleys. Valleys restrict the amount of developable land, thereby increasing the value of the land. If the mountain is a big mountain with favorable snow and terrain, that encourages vacationers, which therefore encourages more development. Prices rise, and so on... of course in recessions prices will fall, as second homes become harder to hold on to, however, markets do recover.... eventually. The trick is to be either a home owner before the resort gets developed, or to get in early.

And most importantly, ski areas haven't exactly been treating the environment with the respect it deserves.

Seriously....
Skiing is bad for the environment... period! That is unless you don't fly or drive to the mountains (carbon), don't ski trails (which clear acres of forest and cause runoff issues), refuse to take lifts (carbon), ski places with no snowmaking whatsoever (water and carbon), and ski only with wood skis and leather boots (large scale industry... that can't be good for the environment).

We're talking about skiing here, unless you're earning your turns, it's pretty much bad for the environment.

I just simply love how everyone gets on their high horse when it comes to the environment. :roll:

 

[Marc_C]

What I do believe is that skiing has become mostly a rich man's sport...

Become? Skiing has *always* been a rich man's sport. The unique thing that your idealistic blinders prevent you from seeing is that it's actually far cheaper now than 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

...leaving behind a sterile village that lacks soul.

Frankly, I have no idea what this means. I've heard it many times before and I've yet to hear it adequately defined or understandably explained. To me it always sounded like an indictment with little weight leveled as a groovy charge against "the man" by sprout eaters with week old granola in their unkempt beards. Give me something concrete so I know what the hell you're talking about.

I understand Mammoth had to expand to keep up with the client demand. As a result, that's one less cool ski area available for my generation and type of skiing style.

One of the more difficult exercises any business goes through is deciding which customers aren't worth the cost of keeping.

 

[soulskier]

What I do believe is that skiing has become mostly a rich man's sport...

Become? Skiing has *always* been a rich man's sport. The unique thing that your idealistic blinders prevent you from seeing is that it's actually far cheaper now than 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

I wouldn't call $90 lift tickets, $12 cheeseburgers, $15 for parking cheap. As I recall, the first time I skied at Alta the lift ticket was in the low 20's. Now it's more than 3 times that.

...leaving behind a sterile village that lacks soul.

Frankly, I have no idea what this means. I've heard it many times before and I've yet to hear it adequately defined or understandably explained. To me it always sounded like an indictment with little weight leveled as a groovy charge against "the man" by sprout eaters with week old granola in their unkempt beards. Give me something concrete so I know what the hell you're talking about.

I think it is well explained beginning at 34 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0k_3ws7 ... r_embedded

For a case study, let's talk about Squaw Valley USA so I can speak from first hand experience. During the 90's and until Intrawest sold out the first phase of the Village at Squaw Valley in record time, the base was compromised of some older buildings and a huge parking lot. There were some funky bars and fun places to hang out. (Chamois, which is next to the original Olympic House is still their and mainstays the old school vibe.) The nineties were fun times at Squaw as shape and fat skis started appearing. We had several epic winters and the mountain was not very crowded (at least compared to today).

In 1999, when Intrawest phase 1 sold out, property values in Squaw (and all of North Lake Tahoe/Truckee) sky rocketed overnight. Those of us that were lucky enough to already own property were stoked. At the time I bought my condo in Squaw, I was 20. But most of my friends we still eating top ramen, and were not in the real estate market yet. Within a few years, to compensate for the now expensive real estate, rents rose significantly and forced many out of the Valley, towards Truckee or Kings Beach. The local character and flair, the essence of what made Squaw a happening place to be, was disappearing from the Valley.

The Village at Squaw Valley is a typical Intrawest Village, which looks and feels similar to Mammoth and Whistler (and likely others that I have not visited). The shops are on the ground floor with hotel rooms and suites on the second and above levels. (In a truly sustainable village, both the shop owners and patrons live in the village. In the Intrawest model, the guests and the employees all have to commute to the mountain playground).

In my opinion, the vibe around Squaw has changed a lot, and not for the better. Now there is a Starbucks, a few other chain stores and lots of expensive dining and drinking options. They even removed the infamous "extreme bench", which was a place were people gathered and talked about their day skiing. The village feels fake to me, like a glorified strip mall with nice views.

I understand Mammoth had to expand to keep up with the client demand. As a result, that's one less cool ski area available for my generation and type of skiing style.

One of the more difficult exercises any business goes through is deciding which customers aren't worth the cost of keeping.

Total agree. I guess that's a good problem for a business to have.

 

[soulskier]

I do not think the entire ski industry has it wrong and that big resorts can't survive. What I do believe is that skiing has become mostly a rich man's sport and in many cases, has lost touch with it's clients. Furthermore, many locals have been driven out of their ski areas due to prices, leaving behind a sterile village that lacks soul. And most importantly, ski areas haven't exactly been treating the environment with the respect it deserves.

I disagree with you on this point. I would argue that skiing is about as affordable as it has ever been. Look at the epic pass in colorado. Locals can ski numerous mountains unlimited for less than $700 a year. How is that prohibitively expensive? Vacationers subsidize those cheap season passes, and if it weren't for those villages that lack soul many vacationers wouldn't come, and those season passes might jump up in price.

I was more referring to a family that wants to take a ski vacation. Do the math, it's a small fortune with rentals, lessons, lodging, flights/gas money and full priced lift tickets. It's true season pass prices has come down in some areas, but most everything else at ski resorts has increased significantly.

IMO, reduced season passes are not necessarily a good thing, because now many more people are passholders, thus decreasing the overall ski experience. (When Squaw dropped their pass prices, they were rumored to have sold 8 times as many passes as the year before). Personally,I'd rather pay $500 more per season and have way less skier traffic on the mountain. Better yet, with the MRA, I would rather be a ski area owner and give my hard earned dollars to support my own investment.

Furthermore, many locals have been driven out of their ski areas due to prices, leaving behind a sterile village that lacks soul. And most importantly, ski areas haven't exactly been treating the environment with the respect it deserves.

Give me an example of a town where the prices jumped up and left a sterile village lacking in soul. I can't really think of one on the top of my head as that town would have to predate the resort. Places like Breck, Telluride, Aspen, and Lake Placid come to mind, but they are anything but soulless. I can't really imagine that the locals are complaining about high real estate prices. In fact, I'm sure there are quite a few locals that bought real estate 20 or 30 years ago that extremely happy.

Please see my example of Squaw Valley, posted above.

If you think about real estate in this way: Most towns in the mountains are in valleys. Valleys restrict the amount of developable land, thereby increasing the value of the land. If the mountain is a big mountain with favorable snow and terrain, that encourages vacationers, which therefore encourages more development. Prices rise, and so on... of course in recessions prices will fall, as second homes become harder to hold on to, however, markets do recover.... eventually. The trick is to be either a home owner before the resort gets developed, or to get in early.

And most importantly, ski areas haven't exactly been treating the environment with the respect it deserves.

Seriously....
Skiing is bad for the environment... period! That is unless you don't fly or drive to the mountains (carbon), don't ski trails (which clear acres of forest and cause runoff issues), refuse to take lifts (carbon), ski places with no snowmaking whatsoever (water and carbon), and ski only with wood skis and leather boots (large scale industry... that can't be good for the environment).

We're talking about skiing here, unless you're earning your turns, it's pretty much bad for the environment.

I just simply love how everyone gets on their high horse when it comes to the environment. :roll:

Agreed skiing isn't great on the environment. And for that reason, ski areas should be doing everything they can to be as minimal impact as possible. Look at cars. We all know they are bad on the environment, but at least now they have to be smogged.

Check out Ski Area Citizens Group. http://www.skiareacitizens.com/ They are calling out ski areas that aren't being environmentally kind. Kirkwood recieved some D's and F's and it was reported in the media. Now they are trying to change their tune.

 

[soulskier]

I (and many others) main focus is the skiing, specifically untracked snow and uncrowded slopes....

and that Sir puts you firmly into a very small minority, kinda the lunatic fringe of Snow Sports. Sure very cool and the envy of many mortals but any "Ski business model" will have trouble surviving on those slim pickings - the numbers just don't support it. Oh, and you forgot to add Cheap Lift Tickets in the mix, it gives you a nice trifecta. Servicing a small elitist group vs. looking after the needs of the generic masses...that sounds like a private club and you will need a bunch of rich folk for that. And that crowd has no problem with $12 Burgers and $8 Lattes anyway...

While we are in the small minority as you accurately point out, remember that there are tens of millions of skiers worldwide. Thanks to the far reaching power of the internet, we only have to capture a small percentage of the millions. The MRA will offer affordable investment shares to the global ski community. So yes, it will be a private club of sorts, kinda like Yellowstone Club, only for normal folk.

As a result, that's one less cool ski area available for my generation and type of skiing style

Somebody better call Mammoth and let them know...come on, do you think they really care much about such a small fragment of the market?

Of course they don't care, that's not in dispute. But us passionate riders do care, and that's why we are gonna "grow our own".