Is the ski resort model dead?

[soulskier]

No offense Rob, but being in NYC doesn't exactly give you a finger on the ski community pulse.

No, but it give me a more honest appraisal of what a vacationer wants in a ski vacation. I like a variety of places when it comes to skiing.

That's fine. Again, the ski model that we are advocating isn't going after that type of skier/rider. There are a slew of resorts that cater to city folk.

I am simply stating that your vision that there could be huge mountains with barebones infrastructure is untenable and doesn't make economic sense.

One of the areas we are evaluating would have 2-3 low impact drag lifts and/or used chairlifts. The terrain serviced would be among the best in North America, about 3,500 vertical feet, copious snowfall and several thousand acres of skiable terrain, not including touring options. I would argue that makes lots of sense.

Minimal lifts=less employees + less energy demand + lower start up costs

Look I would love for manhattan rent to be what it was in the 70s but then I would have to deal with a much more dangerous city, with higher unemployment, more homeless etc... I know you want a return to the 70s with skiing but it's unrealistic. If you do bare bones with a large mountain you won't get the skier visits to allow it to be economically viable. Skiers like you are a very small minority of skiers.

I believe it's possibly to operate on a very low operating budget, and thus won't need nearly the skier visits as other mountains. Again, I believe drastically lowering operating costs is the recipe for success.

I think you would be very surprised how many hardcore skiers exist throughout the US and Canada. I am back in Tahoe now, and have had an enormous amount of positive reaction to a granola-economy-hippy-elitist-ski area model. Tahoe is just one of many ski communities. There is a growing sentiment amongst many lifestyle skiers that the industry has taken a wrong turn. Look at the name of this thread. For some of us, the answer is yes

Assuming that because people are ski bums, that they are dirty hippies is like me assuming Marc C sings in the Tabernacle Choir every week. That is a gross, and inaccurate generalization.

Fair enough, but it's a pretty good assumption that they're poor. In fact, many ski bums are able to be ski bums because they live in resort towns which offer a plethora of seasonal jobs. Without those seasonal jobs, those ski bums won't be able to afford to ski whether or not it's an MRA ski area.

Check out this book.

http://www.jeremyevans.org/Books.html

"Evans looks at several prominent ski towns in the West (including Crested Butte, Jackson Hole, Telluride, Lake Tahoe, Park City, and Mammoth) and the ski bums who either flourished or fled. He chronicles the American West transformed by rising real estate costs, an immigrant workforce, misguided values, and corporate-owned resorts."



Here's a math question for you:
Q: If the skier visits are the same and the uphill capacity is smaller what do you get?
A: Lines and bottlenecks at lifts.
Here's a people question:
Q: Would a skiers experience be enhanced if he had to stand on line for 3 hours out of a 6 hour day, even if it meant fewer ski traffic while going down?
A: No, a skier would prefer more on hill traffic but more runs per day.

Now, maybe you would prefer longer lines and fewer skier on hill, but that would make you very much in the minority.

You will love this answer. I would limit daily traffic so there was a balance between making a profit and still obtaining a great ski experience. Membership has it's privileges.

BTW investing in green energy at a ski mountain requires tremendous initial capital. It wouldn't see immediate returns on that investment. They would be paying off on that investment for a long time. Even if they weren't paying the electric company, they would still be paying for "electricity" in loan payments.

OK, but say if the clean energy technology, wind turbine(s) for example, was paid off in full, then would it make sense?

Those green technologies whether they are solar and or wind require lots of maintenance. They requires bodies, which requires cost. Everything has a price. If green energy was truly cost effective we would see it a lot more than we have seen up to this point.

I don't buy into that theory. Things are always evolving and getting better. Besides that, with the exception of Silverton and the Yellowstone Club, how many ski areas have been developed in the last 25+ years? It is one thing to retrofit an existing area to be more green. But it's another thing to strart fresh in 2010 with the latest technologies and knowledge.

 

[Tony Crocker]

No offense Rob, but being in NYC doesn't exactly give you a finger on the ski community pulse.

Well, he has hoofed it up Baldy at Alta and skied Little Chute. So I think he has appreciation for the"core" ski values expressed in this thread. And I like the idea of settling into a gourmet lunch at the Rustler after a run like that.

With respect to rfarren's math question, I would remind all that skiers do not distribute themselves optimally on large mountains. Skier traffic is up at Mammoth on the blue runs near the lodges, but the ungroomed up top and on 9, 14, 22 skis pretty much the same as it did 25 years ago. To me this is a win-win and reason why both core skiers and mainstream tourists love Whistler and Mammoth.

Minimal lifts=less employees + less energy demand + lower start up costs

True, but

.... about 3,500 vertical feet, copious snowfall and several thousand acres of skiable terrain, not including touring options....

means a highly trained ski patrol and healthy control budget. Or, like Silverton, you need to be very conservative about openings and your full terrain won't be open very often.

if the clean energy technology, wind turbine(s) for example, was paid off in full...

That would take 50 years in the case of Mt. Abrams. Maybe less in the case of wind, but still too long or more people would be doing it as rfarren notes.

It is one thing to retrofit an existing area to be more green. But it's another thing to start fresh in 2010 with the latest technologies and knowledge.

If soulskier is going to develop a brand new area of the scale he envisions, I will be fascinated to see how that goes over with the local environmental groups. Hopefully better than his Shames proposal did. :stir:

 

[soulskier]

No offense Rob, but being in NYC doesn't exactly give you a finger on the ski community pulse.

Well, he has hoofed it up Baldy at Alta and skied Little Chute. So I think he has appreciation for the"core" ski values expressed in this thread.

With respect to rfarren's math question, I would remind all that skiers do not distribute themselves optimally on large mountains. Skier traffic is up at Mammoth on the blue runs near the lodges, but the ungroomed up top and on 9, 14, 22 skis pretty much the same as it did 25 years ago.

I respectfully disagree.

Minimal lifts=less employees + less energy demand + lower start up costs

True, but

.... about 3,500 vertical feet, copious snowfall and several thousand acres of skiable terrain, not including touring options....

means a highly trained ski patrol and healthy control budget. Or, like Silverton, you need to be very conservative about openings and your full terrain won't be open very often.

A MRA ski area would not be located in a dicey continental snowpack like the San Juans.

We have some creative ways we think we can reduce the operational costs of the snow safety and avalanche mitigation program.

if the clean energy technology, wind turbine(s) for example, was paid off in full...

That would take 50 years in the case of Mt. Abrams. Maybe less in the case of wind, but still too long or more people would be doing it as rfarren notes.

I am not talking about mortgaging it over 40 years, I am suggesting we raise investment shares and other forms of lasagne type financing and buy the turbine(s) outright.

It is one thing to retrofit an existing area to be more green. But it's another thing to start fresh in 2010 with the latest technologies and knowledge.

If soulskier is going to develop a brand new area of the scale he envisions, I will be fascinated to see how that goes over with the local environmental groups. Hopefully better than his Shames proposal did. :stir:

Nice one Tony!

 

[rfarren]

You will love this answer. I would limit daily traffic so there was a balance between making a profit and still obtaining a great ski experience. Membership has it's privileges.

Again, it sounds elitist... for the benefit of those who are ski bums, or who you deem as "soulful skiers." Not sure if that's a great business model if combined with:

about 3,500 vertical feet,... and several thousand acres of skiable terrain,

Even when we consider the area would be serviced by

2-3 low impact drag lifts and/or used chairlifts.

The cost of insurance and avy control would be considerable.

I think you would be very surprised how many hardcore skiers exist throughout the US and Canada. I am back in Tahoe now, and have had an enormous amount of positive reaction to a granola-economy-hippy-elitist-ski area model. Tahoe is just one of many ski communities. There is a growing sentiment amongst many lifestyle skiers that the industry has taken a wrong turn.

I'm not surprised by the numbers of people who feel one way or another. I would, however, be surprised if the majority of those people had enough money to do anything about it and or the business sense to run a successful ski area. This just sounds to much like a diatribe against "the man."

OK, but say if the clean energy technology, wind turbine(s) for example, was paid off in full, then would it make sense?

Yeah if the capital was there to begin with, but where is that capital coming from? Those things aren't exactly cheap, and you're talking about an area that can hardly afford more than rope tow and used fixed lifts.

I don't buy into that theory. Things are always evolving and getting better. Besides that, with the exception of Silverton and the Yellowstone Club, how many ski areas have been developed in the last 25+ years? It is one thing to retrofit an existing area to be more green. But it's another thing to strart fresh in 2010 with the latest technologies and knowledge.

Where the technology is now would require bodies for maintenance. Evolution in technology is certain, but if the technology doesn't exist now, you can't count on it existing in the future.... I'm still waiting for the flying car though... :roll:

 

[rfarren]

A MRA ski area would not be located in a dicey continental snowpack like the San Juans.

Where is it that the snowpack is so stable? Especially since you said in a previous post that it would be a very high snowfall place. I would imagine that no matter how you slice it Avy control is going to be a cost issue.

We have some creative ways we think we can reduce the operational costs of the snow safety and avalanche mitigation program.

Like what? Even so, what about the insurance cost that go with a large area, with less than a standard approach towards avy mitigation.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I respectfully disagree.

I've been skiing Mammoth regularly the past 6 seasons on the MVP while soulskier has been in Argentina. Are there more moguls in the ungroomed now than in 1986? No. Is the natural snowpack degrading faster due to more skier traffic? Only on the Face of 3 mid-May and later by my observation. Tracking up the fresh pow (Mammoth's is not so easy due to wind and density) is an equipment issue IMHO, and it's very elitist to suggest we should roll back the clock on that one. Those Main Lodge blue runs aren't any worse either because now there's a durable snowmaking base under the typical 10-12 feet of natural April snowpack down there.

Somebody is paying the upfront cost of that wind turbine. And they are not getting a reasonable return on their investment. And if we're giving away skiing to those people instead, there goes a chunk of the revenue you need to to maintain the ski area. I think soulskier is going back to the Shames model of finding a bunch of impulse buyers to fund the development but not use it that much. And if that works, he had better build his lifts, hire his ski patrol and operate for a few seasons before deciding he has enough spare capital to make his political statement at a 2% solar or 4-5% wind (wild guess) return.

A MRA ski area would not be located in a dicey continental snowpack like the San Juans.

Probably a good idea. Nonetheless avalanches during and immediately after storms in coastal climates are up there with anybody's. We had a detailed presentation at ISSW about the 1982 Alpine Meadows disaster. Coincidentally I had just read Wall of White http://www.amazon.com/Wall-White-Heroism-Survival-Avalanche/dp/1416546928 a month ago. It's an excellent read.

Using Silverton's "wait it out" strategy in a coastal snowpack is probably what soulskier has in mind and makes the most sense given his objectives. I can tell you to bring your fattest, most rockered boards, as coastal snow that has been sitting around for several (probably windy) days after a storm is usually pretty tough to ski. :idea: It just struck me, this is what Las Lenas is! Not a surprise.

 

[soulskier]

You will love this answer. I would limit daily traffic so there was a balance between making a profit and still obtaining a great ski experience. Membership has it's privileges.

Again, it sounds elitist... for the benefit of those who are ski bums, or who you deem as "soulful skiers." Not sure if that's a great business model if combined with:

about 3,500 vertical feet,... and several thousand acres of skiable terrain,

Even when we consider the area would be serviced by

2-3 low impact drag lifts and/or used chairlifts.

The cost of insurance and avy control would be considerable.

As a members mountain, we have informed we can reduce insurance costs from a traditional ski area. Said another way, shareholders are much less likely to sue their own business.

As mentioned before, we think we can get avie costs reduced through some creative ways.

I think you would be very surprised how many hardcore skiers exist throughout the US and Canada. I am back in Tahoe now, and have had an enormous amount of positive reaction to a granola-economy-hippy-elitist-ski area model. Tahoe is just one of many ski communities. There is a growing sentiment amongst many lifestyle skiers that the industry has taken a wrong turn.

I'm not surprised by the numbers of people who feel one way or another. I would, however, be surprised if the majority of those people had enough money to do anything about it and or the business sense to run a successful ski area. This just sounds to much like a diatribe against "the man."

MRA will be offering reasonably priced shares to the global community. Most everyone can afford $500, but likely not the minimum 1500 shares/$21,000 that Whistler is going to be offering.

OK, but say if the clean energy technology, wind turbine(s) for example, was paid off in full, then would it make sense?

Yeah if the capital was there to begin with, but where is that capital coming from? Those things aren't exactly cheap, and you're talking about an area that can hardly afford more than rope tow and used fixed lifts.

Through seed money, investment shares, company sponsorships, grants, matching funds, subsides, Obama and maybe even Sarah Palin in a couple years :-$

And to clarify, the reason for minimalist lifts isn't just to reduce operating costs, but to reduce operation costs and focus on the downhill experience.

I don't buy into that theory. Things are always evolving and getting better. Besides that, with the exception of Silverton and the Yellowstone Club, how many ski areas have been developed in the last 25+ years? It is one thing to retrofit an existing area to be more green. But it's another thing to strart fresh in 2010 with the latest technologies and knowledge.

Where the technology is now would require bodies for maintenance. Evolution in technology is certain, but if the technology doesn't exist now, you can't count on it existing in the future.... I'm still waiting for the flying car though... :roll:

Sure, I will totally agree there will be team members required for maintainence.

 

[soulskier]

I respectfully disagree.

I've been skiing Mammoth regularly the past 6 seasons on the MVP while soulskier has been in Argentina. Are there more moguls in the ungroomed now than in 1986? No. Is the natural snowpack degrading faster due to more skier traffic? Only on the Face of 3 mid-May and later by my observation. Tracking up the fresh pow (Mammoth's is not so easy due to wind and density) is an equipment issue IMHO, and it's very elitist to suggest we should roll back the clock on that one. Those Main Lodge blue runs aren't any worse either because now there's a durable snowmaking base under the typical 10-12 feet of natural April base down there.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one Mr Crocker.

Somebody is paying the upfront cost of that wind turbine. And they are not getting a reasonable return on their investment. And if we're giving away skiing to those people instead, there goes a chunk of the revenue you need to to maintain the ski area. I think soulskier is going back to the Shames model of finding a bunch of impulse buyers to fund the development but not use it that much. And if that works, he had better build his lifts, hire his ski patrol and operate for a few seasons before deciding he has enough spare capital to make his political statement at a 2% solar or 4-5% wind (wild guess) return.

Factor in incentives, grants, and other angles and I suspect the ROI is quite a bit higher. And if were only 5%, would that be paid off in 20 years, not 50 as suggested earlier?

I have always said I believe if people buy an investment share(s), they will come to visit and support their ski area. I don't think it will be impulsive buying, that's more for flat screen TV's and the likes.

A MRA ski area would not be located in a dicey continental snowpack like the San Juans.

Probably a good idea. Nonetheless avalanches during and immediately after storms in coastal climates are up there with anybody's. We had a detailed presentation at ISSW about the 1982 Alpine Meadows disaster. Coincidentally I had just read Wall of White http://www.amazon.com/Wall-White-Heroism-Survival-Avalanche/dp/1416546928 a month ago. It's an excellent read.

Using Silverton's "wait it out" strategy in a coastal snowpack is probably what soulskier has in mind and makes the most sense given his objectives. I can tell you to bring your fattest, most rockered boards, as coastal snow that has been sitting around for several (probably windy) days after a storm is usually pretty tough to ski. :idea: It just struck me, this what Las Lenas is! Not a surprise.

Well there's a lot more knowledgeable people than me on this. But remember with a surface lift, you can operate on windy days. I think skier compaction is a great form of stablilizing the snowpack in some instances. In a maritime snowpack, you don't have to wait it out too long. A couple clear, cold nights almost always does the trick. Anyways, the avie mitigation will be a big deal for sure, not disputing that at all.

Your right Tony, one of the areas we are evaluating is very Las Leñas like. Here is a photo of it from the plane during a recon trip last spring. Please note the snowpack was 40% of normal, but the terrain is very Andes-like.

 

[Admin]

I've done my best to stay on the sidelines of this food fight but I can't ignore this:

As a members mountain, we have informed we can reduce insurance costs from a traditional ski area. Said another way, shareholders are much less likely to sue their own business.

But their surviving family members don't give a rat's ass about the co-op and will have no reservations whatsoever about taking legal action. So, you either:

1. Intend to fly by the seat of your pants, in which case you'll never obtain an operating permit; or
2. You believe that the above translates to significantly reduced liability premiums. As someone with nearly 25 years of experience in that field I'll only tell you, "Good luck with that one."

Above and beyond that, your statement above translates to, "We don't care about someone getting hurt because of improper, inadequate or unconventional avalanche control methods or other safety measures because if someone gets hurt because of our negligence they're less likely to sue us." At best this is not a solid business plan. At worst it's cold, callous and inhuman.

Someone will be negligent, sooner or later, and even if MRA isn't negligent that won't be determined until a trier of fact, i.e. a jury, decides it. There are significant costs to reach that decision, even if you get a defense verdict. Remember that there's nothing to stop anyone from taking legal action for any reason, which will happen, probably even with some regularity. And that's what a business' liability premiums are predicated upon.

Through seed money, investment shares, company sponsorships

All of which expect a return on investment, something that you still haven't addressed through pages and pages of this topic.

grants, matching funds, subsides, Obama and maybe even Sarah Palin in a couple years :-$

i.e., the dole. That only pays a minority of the cost, you still need an adequate return on investment for the majority. A business isn't a charity.

 

[soulskier]

I am going to dinner now. I will try to participate tomorrow. I really appreciate the banter, and the cross examination is good practice. ¡Buenas noches!

 

[rfarren]

I'm skeptical on a bunch of Soulskiers points to say the least. The Mountain Rider Alliance's mission is interesting, but I think too narrow in scope as to who is actually going to buy shares. You need a fairly large population (share holders) to support your cost. I'm not sure if this will ever be able to work at a large mountain. IMO Soulskier has been drinking the juice a bit too much, and isn't basing this in realism. Furthermore, I feel that continuing this conversation with Soulskier is fruitless as I can no longer take him seriously based on his responses about funding. As Admin said, "a business isn't a charity."

 

[Tony Crocker]

And if were only 5%, would that be paid off in 20 years

I don't know many businesses that would be willing to make an investment like that. And if there's spare capital around once the area is up and running, I suspect the co-op would vote to invest it in the mountain/patrol etc. rather than a speculative 5% return not directly related to why they bought their shares in the first place. Of course, maybe it's not a co-op. Maybe it's a benevolent dictatorship. :stir: Which tends to lead to lawsuits, as admin alluded. The visionary(?) founder of the Yellowstone Club decided to invest member $ in his personal agenda rather than the club the members joined and we all know how that turned out.

Like rfarren, I think I've exhausted my comments at this point. Soulskier has still not answered my repeated questions (starting 2 weeks ago on page 2 of this thread) about whether he has actually visited and/or talked to managements of Silverton or any of the other MRA-niche areas mentioned above. This is where he'll get real world practical answers about most of these issues, much more so than from us on the ski forums.

If soulskier is not interested in visiting/analyzing some of these analogous areas, that tells us all we need to know about MRA's chances of success.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

It's worth noting that the use of a material portion of your shareholders' capital to purchase a wind turbine or other form of alternative energy is an incredibly lousy use of the limited funds you'll have at your disposal. There are a LOT of ski areas out there, and none of them are cash cows. They tend to operate at pretty thin margins, regardless of their business model, snowfall or topography. The notion that you'll have the funds to purchase or build a new ski area, remodel it in the MRA fashion, and then on top of that convert it into a green energy producer up front is ludicrous. I'm sure you'll be able to get creative in terms of skier compaction for avi mitigation and such, but let me know when you run real-world financial models on the sort of savings that can generate as compared to the truck load of money you'll dump into a turbine.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

If soulskier is not interested in visiting/analyzing some of these analogous areas, that tells us all we need to know about MRA's chances of success.

I'd be interested in learning what kind of due-diligence process Aaron and Jen Brill went through before making the plunge on Silverton. I wonder if their idea of transferring the New Zealand ski club format to the U.S. encountered the same kind of opposition when they first discussed it with people stateside. I've been on TGR since the Powdermag exodus and don't recall either of them running early ideas past the Maggot collective (the core demographic for this type of ski area), nor do I remember Aaron posting there until Silverton was a fait accompli and ready to go live.

I understand that it's a conscious tactic rather than pure trollery (circling the wagons to create an us vs. them dynamic), but I'd advise soulskier once again to cease and desist with the constant smug references about "city skiers" and what they allegedly want out of a ski experience. While it may be true in broad strokes, I'd guess that MRG -- which many would see as a relatively close real-life incarnation of an MRA-type mountain -- draws on a LOT of people from the "city" of Burlington. Every time I read an article about Silverton, there always seems to be a quote from someone coming in from a major city (see the link below with a convert from NYC). IMHO, even if people from major population centers aren't the mountain's bread and butter, not alienating them helps create good will; something you'll definitely need in a variety of areas.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/15/si ... index.html

 

[soulskier]

I am going to take a break from posting here for a bit. Thank you all for your feedback thus far, it is very helpful.

Regarding financing of MRA, I realize it has been very vague thus far. In due time, the numbers will become available. In the meantime, please continue to refer to me as an idealistic dreamer with no clue.

I hope y'all will keep talking about the ski resort model, it's fascinating stuff. And JamesD, thanks for the link.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'd be interested in learning what kind of due-diligence process Aaron and Jen Brill went through before making the plunge on Silverton.

Aaron and Jen Brill met while attending Pomona College from 1990-1994. Half an hour up the road there were 2 excellent seasons at Mt. Baldy and the other 2 were above average. I had also heard before about the influence of the New Zealand club areas.

I'd advise soulskier once again to cease and desist with the constant smug references about "city skiers" and what they allegedly want out of a ski experience.

Yes, because soulskier is presumably going to be raising money via co-op shares for his venture as he proposed at Shames. MRG is the obvious analogy here, but I'll bet 99% of MRG shareholders are within drive distance. MRA shareholders won't be, and chances are a lot of them will be from the cities.

 

[riverc0il]

I like all the negativeness in here, people seeing no problem with the status quo and attacking someone thinking outside the box. How many people believe in the ski area pioneer? How many people laughs at them? I remember when people started talking about the MRG Coop in the rec.skiing days. A few diehards believed in it, many more laughs. Not saying soulskier is a pioneer, but he's trying to do something about it, not just playing Monday morning quarterback. :roll:

I am not sure there is too much negativeness. Honestly, I am surprised there has not been more negative mud slinging. And only one commie reference is absolutely impressive given the slant of the FTO forum crowd, bravo for a mostly civil discussion I say! =D>

The majority of posts seem to be questioning if the MRA model will be sustainable as a business model. Many great points have been brought up and I think the discussion will likely cause the plans to be at least somewhat more sound. I think there are still more questions than answers here regarding serious business issues.

Personally, I am all for what MRA stands for regarding the ski experiences I enjoy. But as a professional in the business world, I see a lot of problems that could lead to financial instability, lack of revenue, low margins, etc. These are the issues that any "green friendly" business needs to work out. Especially in a business/political environment that is subsidizing a lot of these green friendly programs which may not always be the case...

 

[Patrick]

but I'll bet 99% of MRG shareholders are within drive distance.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, what is your definition of within a driving distance? 1, 2, 5, 12 hours?

 

[Staley]

Aaron and Jen Brill met while attending Pomona College from 1990-1994. Half an hour up the road there were 2 excellent seasons at Mt. Baldy and the other 2 were above average. I had also heard before about the influence of the New Zealand club areas.

Unfortunately, we can't count Aaron and Jen as alumni. They seem to have gone to another Claremont College, Claremont McKenna.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

For the record, I'm completely behind soulskier and hope that he can make a go of it. Even though I'm closer demographically to the "city skier" whom he doesn't believe would be part of his target audience, my preference for MRA-style mountains is well documented here on FTO.


What's interesting is how these days, via the interwebz and everything, entrepreneurs can lay out their plans -- whether they're merely thinking aloud or have the detail of an extensive RFP-level document -- to people all over the world and get, as he put it, "cross-examined" from a variety of armchair quarterbacks. I certainly qualify as one of them. In the past, I guess that these sort of ski areas happened more organically, whatever that means.