Okay Where

IAHawk

New member
Hi all,
I have never been skiing in the States (unless you count Sundown in Iowa and Chestnut in Illinois) and I am looking for some input on where to go. I know loaded question, but need some help narrowing it down. I am an intermediate skier, and have done some skiing in Europe, Austria, Switzerland and France.
What I am looking for is a place that has a lot of runs, but not cheap but also one that will not break the bank. My wife does not ski so a place that has other activities, sleigh rides, horseback riding (if possible), a spa. We are looking to go in early March for about a week. We will be flying out of Moline, Illinois, or maybe Chicago all depends on the place we go and prices of flights.
Basically the best bang for the buck, none of this college spring break ski trip stuff but just a nice place.
I was thinking Colorado, or Montana area.

Thanks for the help
 
Watch snowfall activity over the next month. IMO, there's no reason to book it now.

I'd watch the following based on your criteria:
1. The Park City area (Park City Mountain Resort, The Canyons and Deer Valley) and the Ogden Valley area (Snowbasin, Powder Mountain) in Utah;
2. Big Sky, Montana;
3. Interior B.C. (Sun Peaks, Big White, etc.);
4. Southern Rockies (Taos, Angel Fire, etc. NM) if El Nino ever delivers (and so far it isn't);
5. Tahoe

Colorado is on average rather pricey, IMO.

Airfare would be easiest and cheapest with #1, or #4 or #5 if you fly Southwest from Midway.
 
Admin":clss60fb said:
Watch snowfall activity over the next month. IMO, there's no reason to book it now.

I'd watch the following based on your criteria:
1. The Park City area (Park City Mountain Resort, The Canyons and Deer Valley) and the Ogden Valley area (Snowbasin, Powder Mountain) in Utah;
2. Big Sky, Montana;
3. Interior B.C. (Sun Peaks, Big White, etc.);
4. Southern Rockies (Taos, Angel Fire, etc. NM) if El Nino ever delivers (and so far it isn't);
5. Tahoe

Colorado is on average rather pricey, IMO.

Airfare would be easiest and cheapest with #1, or #4 or #5 if you fly Southwest from Midway.

With a non-skiing wife, I don't think I'd use much of that list. I've been to Sun Peaks and Big White. I don't think I'd consider taking a non-skier there. Admin turned me on to Ski Santa Fe. If it has good snow, that would be a nice alternative as part of a Taos trip.
 
Admin":3004fmpb said:
I'd watch the following based on your criteria:
1. The Park City area (Park City Mountain Resort, The Canyons and Deer Valley) and the Ogden Valley area (Snowbasin, Powder Mountain) in Utah;
2. Big Sky, Montana;
3. Interior B.C. (Sun Peaks, Big White, etc.);
4. Southern Rockies (Taos, Angel Fire, etc. NM) if El Nino ever delivers (and so far it isn't);
5. Tahoe
I understand that a new FTO feature about Region #4 -- an article that addresses several of your requirements -- will be going online in the next couple days.
 
1) I agree Park Cty group is good for intermediates and non-skiers. Not a good snow year so far though. Ogden areas? I can't imagine what a non-skier would do at those places.
2) Big Sky depends on what your definition of intermediate is. There's a lot of low intermediate terrain but a gigantic gap in upper intermediate/advanced terrain. Then an abundance of extreme DFU stuff on Lone Peak. For non-skiers the highlight would be a trip into Yellowstone. But that means January or February because Yellowstone is closed in March/most of April. Snow is about average so far.
3) Sun Peaks/Big White are ideal "family" resorts. Lots of intermediate terrain, everything is ski-in ski-out and not too expensive. But not necessarily good for a non-skier. Above average snow so far.
4) New Mexico does make a good mixed vacation of ski/non-ski activities. But with a lot of moving around to take best advantage of it. Skiing is very stratified, with Taos highly expert weighted and the other places being much smaller and more beginner/intermediate oriented. Snow is average so far.
5) Tahoe is good for non-skiers especially with the casinos and associated activities. With a non-skier you could base in Reno and get a great deal on price. Massive variety in ski choices but you need to be willing to commute 30-60 minutes each day to take advantage. Snowfall slightly below average so far.

Avoid the Front Range/I-70 areas in Colorado not only for price but for a very bad snow year so far. Western Colorado places like Aspen and Telluride are doing better and you would like them unless price or accessibility are not acceptable.
 
Tony Crocker":3q7mo65p said:
New Mexico does make a good mixed vacation of ski/non-ski activities. But with a lot of moving around to take best advantage of it.
As I found out (to my surprise), the four Enchanted Circle ski areas are no more than 40 minutes away from Taos -- those are the same driving times as for someone who is based in SLC, which is viewed as one of the most driver-friendly bed bases around.

Tony Crocker":3q7mo65p said:
Skiing is very stratified, with Taos highly expert weighted and the other places being much smaller and more beginner/intermediate oriented. Snow is average so far.
Once again, I wonder if Tony is really looking at things through an intermediate prism. There is at least two days' worth of blue terrain at Taos, Red River, and Angel Fire, with one day at Sipapu.

And Geoff is correct to add Santa Fe (and Pajarito) to the mix as those two areas (both very fun for an intermediate and with beautiful scenery) are halfway between Taos and Albuquerque, and add another town that is enjoyable to a non-skier.
 
I would think Tremblant should be on the short list, coming from Chicago. Non-skiers will love it. Skiing area is small, but varied. Snow conditions variable - definitely not up to Western U.S. standards but odds are it will be decent enough (especially given the places you mention you've visited in the States). I would imagine it's cheaper overall than Colorado. Can't get much more European, especially with Montreal nearby.
 
rsmith":28fjwcuf said:
I would think Tremblant should be on the short list, coming from Chicago. Non-skiers will love it. Skiing area is small, but varied. Snow conditions variable - definitely not up to Western U.S. standards but odds are it will be decent enough (especially given the places you mention you've visited in the States). I would imagine it's cheaper overall than Colorado. Can't get much more European, especially with Montreal nearby.

If you're willing to go to tremblant then certainly Whistler should be on your list too.
 
rfarren":2re7ctj8 said:
rsmith":2re7ctj8 said:
I would think Tremblant should be on the short list, coming from Chicago. Non-skiers will love it. Skiing area is small, but varied. Snow conditions variable - definitely not up to Western U.S. standards but odds are it will be decent enough (especially given the places you mention you've visited in the States). I would imagine it's cheaper overall than Colorado. Can't get much more European, especially with Montreal nearby.

If you're willing to go to tremblant then certainly Whistler should be on your list too.

Ya, I belatedly saw the mention of the 'States'. But, still, I would have to think Tremblant is hard to beat for a Chicagoan with a non-skiing wife who has a European background.
 
Throw Sun Valley in the mix. Best groomers in the country, great views, and there are great deals. Additionally, fantastic skate skiing.

Doug
 
There is at least two days' worth of blue terrain at Taos, Red River, and Angel Fire, with one day at Sipapu.
Yes, if you want to ski the same handful of blue runs multiple times. Compared to Park City, Snowmass, Big White or Sun Peaks, not in the same league. I do think New Mexico works great for a "mixed vacation" of skiing and non-skiing activities. Taos, Santa Fe, Anasazi ruins (we also went south to White Sands and Carlsbad Caverns) all very worthwhile for days you're not skiing. But for most intermediates the ski areas are one day areas IMHO.

Sun Valley depends on your defintion of intermediate. Lots of long groomers but significantly steeper than the blues at typical destination resorts. It should be GPaul's dream mountain.
 
It might be too late in March to visit steamboat, but I believe that has a pretty varied town full of activities, while much of the mountain is blue. I've never been there but I've heard this before.

Has anyone thought about Targhee? I don't think it has much of a town, but Yellowstone is pretty close by.
 
Steamboat has more south than north exposure, January/February far preferred. Not as much of a March crapshoot as Jackson as it's a mellower mountain where more can be groomed.

With regard to Targhee/Yellowstone, same issue as Big Sky: needs to be before March if you want tosee Yellowstone.
 
Hey thanks for all the info! What about Beaver Creek?
This is the same problem I found when living in Europe, so many places and if you are not familiar with the ares choosing is hard to do.
My biggest issue is with the prices. europe seems cheaper even with the exchange rate. I belonged to a ski club in Germany and we had a lot of weekend trips, anywhere from 175 euro to 300 euro for a 3 day ski trip. We stayed in modest places and most included half board.
This is not to say that some of the trips I took were at some nicer places, my Interlaken trip my wife and I stayed an a pretty nice place but we were only there for 3 nights.
The length of stay is what is making the trip more expensive, I am used to only weekend trips not week long trips, the difference is the travel time, 5 hours by car I could be in a number of ski areas/countries. Here in he states 3 hours in plane is quite a distance so why not make a week of it.
 
Tony Crocker":3a8gyzq1 said:
With regard to Targhee/Yellowstone, same issue as Big Sky: needs to be before March if you want tosee Yellowstone.
And Yellowstone is only a one-day diversion on a week long ski trip. For a non-skiing partner, Jackson would be a much more favorable destination.
 
For a non-skiing partner, Jackson would be a much more favorable destination.
But as discussed many times, Jackson in March is a bad idea. Even more so for an intermediate.

Beaver Creek is a very nice place. But very expensive.
 
Tony Crocker":36p5p92h said:
For a non-skiing partner, Jackson would be a much more favorable destination.
But as discussed many times, Jackson in March is a bad idea. Even more so for an intermediate.

Beaver Creek is a very nice place. But very expensive.

I second that. Jackson in March was the worst mistake I ever made as far as money spent.
 
I second that. Jackson in March was the worst mistake I ever made as far as money spent.
Me too. It was the only time I've had to abandon a destination resort after one day and relocate (to SLC), paying for idle lodging and an unplanned rental car. Fortunately I was able to unload the the one week lift tickets that came with the package. I gave an newly arrived tourist some BS that the mountain was too tough for us and that's why we were leaving.

There was a 110 inch base but the surfaces on 3/4 of the terrain were unskiable, at least for me on 1986-vintage equipment. I have in retrospect viewed that trip as the formative experience in motivating me to analyze snow conditions.
 
If cost was no object, would anybody vote against Aspen?

4 ski areas (O.K., 3), high and north facing, that together do less business than Breck alone, the nicest ski town (sure to get flack for this), and great views (Pyramid Peak, the Bells, the divide). Plus a lot of high speed lifts so that he can spend more time with wife after he has exhausted himself.

Now that we have established that this is the best call, there must be package deals that make it affordable. There are some moderately priced places in Aspen. And he only needs one lift ticket so a $20 premium isn't so bad.

If you were thinking eastern Canada (and I can't see why you would), I would pick Quebec City/ Ste Anne/ Le Massif over Tremblant. You get real acadian architecture rather than an Intrawest imitation of it, better hills, better views, and more snow. Right, Admin?
 
You make a compelling argument for Aspen, but if -- and only if -- there's a deal to be found. Remember the OP's criteria.

Skrad":atsfahxd said:
If you were thinking eastern Canada (and I can't see why you would), I would pick Quebec City/ Ste Anne/ Le Massif over Tremblant. You get real acadian architecture rather than an Intrawest imitation of it, better hills, better views, and more snow. Right, Admin?

Agreed. But as you said, "I can't see why you would." If you're flying, might as well go west, not east. On top of that, the Quebec City areas are anything but resort-centric as the OP is accustomed to in Europe. Driving to each from Quebec City requires a drive of 45-75 minutes depending on the resort, and the Beaupré area is, IMO, decidedly unattractive. Le Massif has no beds, and Stoneham is strictly a suburban ski area IMO.
 
Back
Top