joegm":8ty1uu6x said:
i think crocker has it right.
i also think that places like saddleback and burke, both super hills with great terrain, are never gonna be as successful as they think they are. they are always gonna teter on the edge of viability in todays ski climate...
burke is kidding itself with these grand expansion plans...i'm seeing ads for homes at burke for 950K... what!!!!!!.. that is a joke...it's not that it's not worth it.. it's a great area for sure...it's just way too far...no one goes there and no one is gonna go there...no one in the sense of anyone who brings in the real money... not people like all of us who ski on season passes and end up skiing for about 10 to 30 bucks a day...
it's the same problem ( if you want to call it that.. some locals could say it's not a problem and i would understand that) with saddleback and it's also why sugarloaf, no matter what any sugarloaf diehard says, is always gonna be a place that barely gets by, if it gets by at all...jay gets away with it cause they get money coming in from canada...
saddleback and burke and still not open yet...how do they think they are ever going to be major players if they can't justify spinning by now... they are not opening not because of lack of snow/skiable terrain... they are not open because they think no one will show up... they are probably right, unfortunately.... what serious skier is gonna buy property and make a major investment to the tune of a million bucks in some cases, at a place that can't justify opening by now...just my 2 cents
I'll refer to a previous post of mine, it depends on how you define success. Ultimately, I'm judging by overall skier experience, not by how this will pan out as an investment option as an owner/part owner of the resort. Admittedly, some of that skier experience will be driven by the success of the mountain from a financial standpoint but that sort of success is not completely necessary. Sugarloaf is case and point. Successful to me means:
Do they have a varied and challenging terrain?
Do they have terrain parks as well as more beginnner terrain?
Do they have accomodations such as updated lift services, state of the art lodge(s), hotels, a variety of other real estate options?
do they have a variety of other activities available other than skiing? tennis courts, swimming pools, spas, hiking, fisihing, golf?
If all these amenities are offered then they're guarented to enhance the overall experience As a consumer, not an owner, that is a success. I don't care if they don't turn the same profit as a stowe or a killington. I'm just there to enjoy the experience. Isn't that everyone else's objective?
And about thse mountains not spinning yet, that's not very relevant at this point. Saddleback currently is considered a small operation in comparison to a lot of other ski areas but I'm sure that changes as they expand. If real estate is any indication (which it is predominately), then they'll be fine. From what I understand Saddleback is selling condos at a faster rate than they initially anticipated. The more real estate they sell, the more skier visits. The more skier visits, they earlier they open (among other things).
As I said earlier, if you have the means and resources to develop a first class ski area (vertical, elevation, views, and or course financial backing), and are unwavering in your committment to achieve that goal, skiiers will come despite its location. Give me an example of one ski mountain anywhere, where all of the aformentioned criteria were met and no one showed up.