New Developments at Mount Snow, 1958

[billski]

"Walt Schoenknecht of Mt. Snow has invested over three-quarters of a million dollars in new developments, while cramming two years of normal expansion into a single summer's work, as his vision of a mountain serviced by over a dozen chairlifts fast becomes a reality.

A new double-chair lift 4700 feet long has been constructed on the upper reaches of the mountain. This is directly in line with an existing 3000 foot lift and will make a second full lift line to the summit, as well as serving the South Bowl and the upper, steeper sections. A new system of five trails, ranging from intermediate to expert, has been built in connection with this new lift. A novice slope, 1/4 mile wide and 1 1/2 long has also been constructed.

The base lodge has been tripled in size and now includes a large balcony-tower section overlooking a heated, glass-enclosed swimming pool, the first such pool east of Sun Valley. The new Lodge will house six brand-new restaurants, which together with the existing ones at the base and summit will allow the skier to purchase food at eight different places. In addition, the ski shop has been doubled in size, making it the largest in New England"

Source:
Appalachia,
Vol. XXXII No. 2, December 15, 1958.

 

[Glenn]

How cool would it be to travel back in time and see the place as it was in 1958?

 

[billski]

How cool would it be to travel back in time and see the place as it was in 1958?

You would probably be cranky. Long lift lines, slow lifts that stop or break down a lot, clothes that get wet, skiers that get cold, mile-long skis that are damn difficult to control, equipment that breaks, slopes with all skill levels, lots of ambulance trips....

 

[Geoff]

I skied Mount Snow in the mid-1960's when all of that was still intact. The "Jetsons Car" over from the Snow Lake Lodge. The geyser in the middle of snow lake that created a huge snow mound you could ski on in the spring. The indoor skating rink and outdoor heated swimming pool. The original clunky lifts that ran on tracks.

And yeah, the lines on weekends were staggering.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

I skied it for the first time in 1962 and was impressed by all the things Geoff mentioned. I thought it would be so cool to stay at the hotel and take that Disneylike lift over the lake to the base lodge. The outdoor heated swimming pool impressed us as well.

I have posted in other older threads about the time my brother and I while skiing at Mt Snow we went thru the woods to a trail with much better snow conditions and realized when he skied down that we had skied into Corinthia. My little brother freaked out but the folks there were real nice and let us go up the t-bar so we could get back over to the icy wind blown conditions at Mt Snow. We did it cause we could hear skiers thru the trees and it sounded like it wasn't as icy as the trails that we had been skiing.

It was one of those typical NE bluebird days with frigid temps, a wind kicking up the snow making the conditions hard and icy. We still have those kind of days but the grooming and snowmaking nowadays really makes a big diference as compared to 30/40 years ago.

 

[Glenn]

I skied it for the first time in 1962 and was impressed by all the things Geoff mentioned. I thought it would be so cool to stay at the hotel and take that Disneylike lift over the lake to the base lodge. The outdoor heated swimming pool impressed us as well.

I have posted in other older threads about the time my brother and I while skiing at Mt Snow we went thru the woods to a trail with much better snow conditions and realized when he skied down that we had skied into Corinthia. My little brother freaked out but the folks there were real nice and let us go up the t-bar so we could get back over to the icy wind blown conditions at Mt Snow. We did it cause we could hear skiers thru the trees and it sounded like it wasn't as icy as the trails that we had been skiing.

It was one of those typical NE bluebird days with frigid temps, a wind kicking up the snow making the conditions hard and icy. We still have those kind of days but the grooming and snowmaking nowadays really makes a big diference as compared to 30/40 years ago.

That's a cool story.

Walt was quite the visionary and had a heck of a resort there. My inlaws, who never skied, even went up there once to stay a few nights.

 

[deadheadskier]

How long before they realized that a trail 1320 feet wide probably wasn't a good idea?

 

[Hawkshot99]

How long before they realized that a trail 1320 feet wide probably wasn't a good idea?

What trail is this?

 

[Mapnut]

" A novice slope, 1/4 mile wide and 1 1/2 long has also been constructed.
.

Something's not quite right with that. That slope alone would be 240 acres!

 

[billski]

Something's not quite right with that. That slope alone would be 240 acres!

That's what it says.....

 

[Mapnut]

I estimate that of their present biggies, South Bowl to Sundance is about 60 acres and Snowdance is about 30 acres. I doubt they let the above-mentioned trail grow back in!

Here's the oldest trail map I could find at Teachski.com, 1963-1964:
http://teachski.com/brochures/mountsnow/mountsnow60s4.jpg

 

[ski_resort_observer]

With big wide slopes not surprising that Mt Snow is one of the cheerleaders who like the new trend of reporting acreage in ski reports. With one trail open they can have more acreage than a Wilcat or a MRG with 20 trails open.

 

[Riverskier]

With big wide slopes not surprising that Mt Snow is one of the cheerleaders who like the new trend of reporting acreage in ski reports. With one trail open they can have more acreage than a Wilcat or a MRG with 20 trails open.

Yeah, no kidding. I never understood the hype about reporting acreage. If a mountain is truly interested in full disclosure and accurate reporting, then report # of trails, miles, and acres. That is what Sunday River does, showing the full picture of how much terrain is open.

 

[jaywbigred]

Very interesting article. I always see pictures of the people in the pool looking very Hollywood-like. Sexy in a Mad Men type of way.

 

[Geoff]

Yeah, no kidding. I never understood the hype about reporting acreage. If a mountain is truly interested in full disclosure and accurate reporting, then report # of trails, miles, and acres. That is what Sunday River does, showing the full picture of how much terrain is open.

Not really. % of acreage open is a far more userful indication. Even better, % of acrage open broken down by novice, intermediate, advanced, and expert terrain.

If you're somewhere like, say, Squaw Valley, there aren't named trails. You have locals names for things but you basically have lifts & skiing. Trail counts are just marketing hype used in the east to claim more than you have.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

If a mountain is truly interested in full disclosure and accurate reporting, then report # of trails, miles, and acres. That is what Sunday River does, showing the full picture of how much terrain is open.

Not really. % of acreage open is a far more userful indication. Even better, % of acrage open broken down by novice, intermediate, advanced, and expert terrain.

i'm with riverskier on this one. in the east, i want to know trails, miles and acres, 'cause without all three indicators you have problems of trail number inflation on one hand and acreage info being misleading on the other hand (imho, it's better to have 4 three-acre trails open instead of 1 twenty-acre super-wide trail open).

 

[Riverskier]

Not really. % of acreage open is a far more userful indication. Even better, % of acrage open broken down by novice, intermediate, advanced, and expert terrain.

If you're somewhere like, say, Squaw Valley, there aren't named trails. You have locals names for things but you basically have lifts & skiing. Trail counts are just marketing hype used in the east to claim more than you have.

% of acreage open is only useful if you know how many total acres the ski area has. Otherwise, if you used that as a factor for determining where to ski, you could end up at a resort that is 100% open, but only has 50 acres, as opposed to a mountain that is 50% open, but has 1000 acres. Not to mention, if you know how many total acres a mountain, but they only list the number of acres open, you can very easily calculate the % yourself.

Anyway, the point of my post wasn't to say what the best indicator is. My point was that it just seems silly to make a big deal about a switch from reporting trail count to acreage. Why not do both? Why not report miles as well? Bottom line, the more information a mountain can provide in their reports the better.

 

[Riverskier]

i'm with riverskier on this one. in the east, i want to know trails, miles and acres, 'cause without all three indicators you have problems of trail number inflation on one hand and acreage info being misleading on the other hand (imho, it's better to have 4 three-acre trails open instead of 1 twenty-acre super-wide trail open).

Agreed 100%. You really need all 3 to get the most accurate picture of what's open as possible.

Also, in defense of trail count, yes it can be misleading if you are unfamiliar with a mountain. However, it can be perhaps the most useful tool of all if you know the mountain. For example, say it is late November and Sunday River has 30 trails open, I could probably name around 28 of them. If they reported their acreage as of that same date, it would give me very little indication of what is actually open.

 

[deadheadskier]

could care less about percentages, acres and or number of trails open.

I like an interactive map that shows what's open or a list like most areas do these days.

 

[Newpylong]

Trail names works for me.