master plan thread

steamboat1 · Oct 17, 2016

deadheadskier said:
That project looks to be considerably larger than Spruce Peak at Stowe. What's the price tag?

I believe the price tag for just Phase I was in the $140M ballpark & that estimate is at least several years old. You can see parking is below the village with a long slong through the village to get to any lift. I think this is Phase I.

deadheadskier · Oct 18, 2016

Seems to me the better option is to have the buildings up by Snowden quad be phase 1. It would add desirable slopeside lodging without affecting the overall experience people are used to too much. If that goes well, move on down to Snowshed / Ramshead.

cdskier · Oct 18, 2016

deadheadskier said:
What a dramatic change that would be to the Killington experience. I'm not sure I'd want it if K was my home hill. Seems like the only benefit would be for new real estate buyers. It's not like those who already have homes there lack for dining, entertainment and retail options. I guess the on hill benefit would be the interconnect, but I'm in the camp of keeping Pico as a stand alone

Is there even a market demand for the added real estate at K? The problem with so many of these new developments is that they are way overpriced and your "average" skier is never going to be able to afford to buy any of the new units on the mountains. It would be nice if someone built reasonably priced condos, but developers always want to maximize their profits (understandably).

benski · Oct 18, 2016

cdskier said:
Is there even a market demand for the added real estate at K? The problem with so many of these new developments is that they are way overpriced and your "average" skier is never going to be able to afford to buy any of the new units on the mountains. It would be nice if someone built reasonably priced condos, but developers always want to maximize their profits (understandably).

Their are also older condos and houses for those who can't afford the luxury units.

Do some ski areas put a lot of backup plans or just extra stuff in there master plans so they have something to concede to environmentalists and locals or to get condo buyer excited about the future of the resort there buying into?

deadheadskier · Oct 18, 2016

I'd say if the market demand was there, it would have already been built. The K village plan has been on the table for many years.

Then again the Stowe stuff sold fairly quickly.

cdskier · Oct 18, 2016

deadheadskier said:
I'd say if the market demand was there, it would have already been built. The K village plan has been on the table for many years.

Then again the Stowe stuff sold fairly quickly.

I'd argue Stowe's target demographic is a bit different than K, although perhaps there is pent-up hidden demand at that level at K or K wants to get more of that demographic to the resort. I know Sugarbush has been slowly building new slopeside condos and I would say from my perspective there seems to be low demand. The latest phase was a 16 unit complex. They had to have commitments to sell at least half before they broke ground. They broke ground in summer of 2015 and construction was finished a few months ago. There are still 2 or 3 units for sale.

cdskier · Oct 18, 2016

benski said:
Their are also older condos and houses for those who can't afford the luxury units.

Of course...but that doesn't mean there is actually demand for luxury units. If there's an excess of other units already for sale, that could also indicate the opposite that there's an over supply and lack of demand. Where will the people that want to buy the luxury units come from? Are they already in the area and want to "upgrade"? Or are they assuming that there are people without condos/homes in the area that would suddenly buy one if a slope-side luxury one was built? (i.e. if you build it they will come mentality).

Jully · Oct 18, 2016

cdskier said:
Of course...but that doesn't mean there is actually demand for luxury units. If there's an excess of other units already for sale, that could also indicate the opposite that there's an over supply and lack of demand. Where will the people that want to buy the luxury units come from? Are they already in the area and want to "upgrade"? Or are they assuming that there are people without condos/homes in the area that would suddenly buy one if a slope-side luxury one was built? (i.e. if you build it they will come mentality).

I would think it is a combination of both. There are always new homeowners in every market and the rise of mountain biking and summer activities could even add more to the pool of potential buyers. On top of that there is certainly more desirability for a brand new luxury unit as opposed to an older condo from the '90s or even earlier. In non-resort condo units that are still expanding in a phase 2 or 3 manytimes you will see condos for sale from phase 1 of the development that aren't selling while new units in phase 2 and 3 just steps from phase 1 are selling at a higher cost!

Jully · Oct 18, 2016

cdskier said:
I'd argue Stowe's target demographic is a bit different than K, although perhaps there is pent-up hidden demand at that level at K or K wants to get more of that demographic to the resort. I know Sugarbush has been slowly building new slopeside condos and I would say from my perspective there seems to be low demand. The latest phase was a 16 unit complex. They had to have commitments to sell at least half before they broke ground. They broke ground in summer of 2015 and construction was finished a few months ago. There are still 2 or 3 units for sale.

I looked at the Sugarbush units and they actually just seemed expensive / luxury and that is why they are not selling as fast. They will certainly have completely sold out soon though I would bet.

I would actually wonder if K was planning on making any of these units affordable. Sugarloaf (given Maine is less of a luxury market than VT to begin with) has actually had a lot of success building units that are quite affordable compared to the >$600,000 price tag I think I saw on the cheapest units at Sugarbush's slopeside development. SL obviously needs to sell 2 or 3 of their units to match one of SB's, but thats the difference between a 16 unit complex and a 45 unit complex.

Rothski · Oct 18, 2016

This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.

ImageUploadedByAlpineZone1476796976.015505.jpg

Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

Jully · Oct 18, 2016

Rothski said:
This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.

View attachment 20867

Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

Stupid bears...

cdskier · Oct 18, 2016

Jully said:
I looked at the Sugarbush units and they actually just seemed expensive / luxury and that is why they are not selling as fast. They will certainly have completely sold out soon though I would bet.

I would actually wonder if K was planning on making any of these units affordable. Sugarloaf (given Maine is less of a luxury market than VT to begin with) has actually had a lot of success building units that are quite affordable compared to the >$600,000 price tag I think I saw on the cheapest units at Sugarbush's slopeside development. SL obviously needs to sell 2 or 3 of their units to match one of SB's, but thats the difference between a 16 unit complex and a 45 unit complex.

I would love to see affordable options built at any resort and think it is a shame when they focus purely on the luxury ones. Hopefully K's plan includes at the very least a mixture. I think the cheapest unit at SB in the new development that I saw was over 700K for a 2 bedroom unit. And you have to factor in the condo association fees as well which are also astronomical in the new SB developments (the 2 BR unit at Gadd Brook is 1200/month in fees).

cdskier · Oct 18, 2016

Rothski said:
This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.

View attachment 20867

I'd settle for some parts of the plan outlined in the 2008 Vegetation Management plan that I saw.

machski · Oct 18, 2016

deadheadskier said:
Seems to me the better option is to have the buildings up by Snowden quad be phase 1. It would add desirable slopeside lodging without affecting the overall experience people are used to too much. If that goes well, move on down to Snowshed / Ramshead.

But that is part of the problem. Any Snowden quad replacement I have heard rumored is tied to the development and likely lengthend down to it. Steamboat would know best.

Seems to me the best way to deal with the parking might be a lift like Tremblant has through the Village from parking to the K1 lodge for day trippers. Then you can ski through at the end of the day.

I also think the thought is to have any type of destination skier draw (apparently the interconnect alone wouldn't be enough in their estimation), they need a centralized, highly developed base village. I will say that while the ski terrain wasn't killer, the base village at Tremblant was a nice feature and would lead us to make the slog back up there for an extended stay or 2 in the future. So while I don't need it at K due to my proximity to it, I can see why they would love to finally get this rolling. Probably also a revenue generator (hopefully) for things we all would love to see on the hill.

dlague · Oct 18, 2016

It looks like about half of the K-1 Parking lot will be used for residential units. As you can see The top circled area is what is the planned remaining parking up there so it is not going away totally. Closer to the planned village there is parking also circled but that will be a hike. Parking seems to be significantly reduced as far as I can see.

Killington_Core_Area_Master_Plan.sized.jpg

I am sure this was brought up along the way this summer but thought I would share it in any case. I did not know this happened.

http://mountaintimes.info/killington-village-closer-than-ever/

steamboat1 · Oct 18, 2016

deadheadskier said:
Then again the Stowe stuff sold fairly quickly.

I believe Stowe has a different model. They sell 1/4 shares of their units making them somewhat more affordable then buying a unit outright. Each 1/4 gets to use their unit for several weeks during spring, summer, fall & winter. Then of course you have the option of buying one of their town houses outright or I guess you could buy a unit outright by buying all four quarter shares.

steamboat1 · Oct 18, 2016

machski said:
But that is part of the problem. Any Snowden quad replacement I have heard rumored is tied to the development and likely lengthend down to it. Steamboat would know best.

Yes I've heard the same thing about extending Snowdon chair down further. How exactly they'd accomplish that I don't know. As I'm sure you know both their maintenance & storage yard for their groomers is located just behind the base of the current Snowden chair. Not only that but their in house snowmaking plant is just behind the maintenance yard. I'm sure they have it figured out.

benski · Oct 18, 2016

Rothski said:
This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.

View attachment 20867

Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

Ouch, everything would have been a boulevard except one trail in slide brook, upper cotillion, upper paradise, twist, and tumbler. Why is there upper traverse from north lynx to castlerock, You could not have given that some slope. Also it appears heavens gate goes down spillsville and ends at the bottom of domino. Thank god they did not let this whole plan go threw the only thing I like about this plan outside of slide brook which too has too many boulevards. Should have had a few boulevards and a bunch of narrow trails similar to castlerock so fewer people ski there.

benski · Oct 18, 2016

Rothski said:
This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.

View attachment 20867

Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

I just noticed the lift bring people from slide brook to MT Ellen terminates near the bottom of FIS so you would then have to ski the flat out get back. Awful idea. why not extend that lift to the main mountain.

ss20 · Oct 18, 2016

Jully said:
Stupid bears...

Same reason why Snow and Haystack couldn't be connected (as pictured earlier in the thread).

What is it with bears and interconnects? I'm surprised the anti-Killington interconnect people didn't move the Parker's Gore bears over to Pico to prevent that interconnect from happening! :lol:

master plan thread

New member

Attachments

Moderator

Well-known member

Active member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads