Marc_C":15uezseb said:
As I said in my OP, I fully reject the notion of villages being authentic or soulful and able to be ranked against each other and I reject the two terms as being pointless descriptors. When used in an argument, they severely undermine and dilute the validity of the position. So "kinda" not as in "...maybe, sorta, just a little bit." but as in "pretty much shreds".
Now saying that you prefer the gestalt of say Telluride to that of Vail, it's much easier to discuss the specific attributes that you dislike or find appealing. But to say that Vail sucks 'cause it's not authentic because there was no town there before the ski area existed is merely clueless, idealistic B.S. born from an excess of granola and patchouli.
That's fair, but let's take that thought exercise a little further. Gestalt is equivalent to "vibe", yes? If one were to visit Vail, Whistler, or any of the nearly identical, purpose-built base villages at places like Northstar, Squaw, Mammoth, Stratton, Aspen Highlands, Copper, Keystone etc.., one could reasonably conclude that the gestalt/vibe of those places isn't really their cup of tea. Why is that?
1) They are, for all intents and purposes, identical. If you were dropped off blindfolded in the middle of one, you'd be hard pressed to figure out where you were w/o signage indicating the name of the place.
2) They generally do not contain year-round residents - the housing is owned and marketed to out of town, second home residents. That is generally going to hinder the development of a community in that people don't interact with each other on a daily basis and don't have to live with the choices they are making. It's also going to prevent a town's residents from developing a unique character. Rather it will consist solely of people who are just passing through.
3) The construction of purpose built base villages generally takes place over a window of 10-20 years. It does not evolve organically over centuries. This is important not b/c "organic" is inherently good. Hell, Buffalo, Hartford and Detroit have developed organically over centuries too and they are sh!t holes. Rather, this has the effect of distorting the pace and nature of economic development in town. When you are committing hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to build a base village in a relatively short period of time, this has several inevitable results. First, the capital required for this development is massive b/c it's happening all at once. The only way to generate the expected ROI is to maximize retail rents and condo sales prices. From the perspective of retail rents, if I'm the company looking to fill retail space, my only concern is that Starbucks can pay me the $10,000/month I'm looking for. If Jane's Java Nook can only afford $8000/month, tough luck - I've got debt payments to make. Second, and related, is that this capital has to come from out of town, b/c there isn't enough in the local area to finance such a large project. As such, the out of town owner of the new developments are not only looking to maximize their rental income, they are not part of the community and couldn't care less if their tenants are local entrepreneurs. In fact, they probably prefer large, well-known chains b/c they are easier to market to the out-of-towners who own all the condos in the development. FWIW, there are two Starbucks in Vail Village per their website.
Moreover, when your base village consists largely of national chains vs. locally owned stores/restaurants, an inevitable result is that you have fewer business owners in that village and more part-time, low-wage employees. This simply serves to reinforce the socio-economic divide between the wealthy out-of-towners and the locals. One of the reasons why Aspen and Telluride, for all of their faults and high housing costs, are generally considered "real towns" is b/c you've got thousands of year-round residents there who run businesses and form the fabric of a community. When you've got an economic stake in the well-being of a place, you tend to care how it is run and take an active part in the decision-making processes therein.
Now this isn't to suggest that you can objectively define "soul" and say with mathematical certainty that some places have it while others don't. What of Steamboat, Jackson and Stowe, with towns that are as real as it gets, but with relatively new, and somewhat charmless base villages? In sum, I can see both sides here. Soulskier's placing of labels upon a town based on some sort of simplistic criteria is a fruitless exercise. But it's no more worthless than Marc C's utilization of a still photo as some sort of rejoinder. What defines a towns soul can't be captured in a picture of a pedestrian street. It's more about how people live and interact with each other. Is there a unique gestalt, to use Marc's term, or is it characterized by a dull sameness that you can find at any tourist venue? As with just about any issues, there is no black and white here - just many shades of gray. It is disingenous of both sides to suggest otherwise.
