Article on Burke

[the original trailboss]

Burke/Saddleback

Interesting that the above post references Saddleback as two Burke representatives spent a day there recently looking at their baselodge.It was apparently designed by the same architects that Burke/Ginn is working with for a possible replacement of their main lodge. As to whether Ginn has any intentions of retaining the character of the place it is hard to say for sure but it is clear that the ski area will likely be an amenity,as will the golf course, to a REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. One can only hope that the community is not destroyed in the process.

 

[riverc0il]

Nice thoughts, dropKickMurphy. The financial backing that Ginn brings is certainly a big asset to Burke's long term future if Ginn follows through on their plan. Saddleback's plans seem much harder to imagine as the plans seem to not gel with the type of profitability the resort currently or could possibly in the future generate. The difference between pricing certainly is reflective of the difference between a real estate driven four season resort with golf course versus a ski area driven mountain. Burke has the better functional layout in terms of terrain once the new HSQ goes to the summit. Not too crazy about the East Bowl "enhancements" that will come with the lift relocations but amenity or not the ski area is going to one of the best laid out in the industry. I am neither passionately for or against Ginn, I just hope the ski area retains its currently quality and atmosphere after the improvements are done... and I am GLAD that the mountain is being elevated to the status it should have including having a HSQ to the summit. Just be careful with East Bowl. Saddleback... I think they are over ambitious with their plans and I worry for that mountain's future with such grand plans.

 

[thetrailboss]

Some more thoughts with regards to dropkickmurphy's points....

Burke is similar to Saddleback in the mentioned areas. However, there are some pretty big distinctions. First, its location (seven miles from I-91) is MUCH BETTER than Saddleback, which is isolated geographically and tougher to get to thanks to the terrible roads (the worst I have driven probably...last season when I went to Sugarloaf, the road from Rangeley to Rumford was just terrible). The second point was what was mentioned: the attitude of the owners and their markets.

I think that the remote location of Saddleback has forced the owners to work with the community more and to rely on locals to sustain itself. Locals as in those from, say, two hours away. Burke (appears) to have succeeded when it has had the locals on board. The 2000-2001 season was probably one of the best in recent history (they made a slight profit) because they had little overhead and because locals were invested in the mountain in more ways than one. When Northern Star began to forget about the locals, things went downhill. And the long term plans for Burke, in selling million dollar homes, will depend on those coming up 91 from urban areas. But what if gas gets more expensive? Or if our winter gets shorter while the west hangs tough? It seems that there is some conflict with operations because the ski area is advertising locally and trying to get locals up to the slopes...while "Bridgemor" is on the drawing boards and is (somehow) going to be aimed at a different crowd. As was said last year in the Killington Boards with the recent purchase of Killington by another upscale real estate company, how will the company reconcile selling million dollar trophy homes and having $15 Sunday Afternoon tickets? The former market will not tolerate the latter. I sense that the resort management is not unified....with some focusing on the (practical) operations of the ski area and looking at how to make that sustainable while another portion has their heads in the clouds on this "Bridgemor" project. The energy is divided as well....

And there is a further disconnect between the management and the community. Now some of the resort's key management members are out there everyday and are aware of what people want. And I think that they are doing some things well (Vermont ticket rates, Sunday Afternoon deals). But locals don't care about having a ski check, or having a free bag check, and most locals can bus their own trays. The amount of staff at the Sherburne Lodge is hugely disproportionate when compared to MidBurke...which is where many locals go. If they had one more bartender at MidBurke, and a busser or two, they'd make MORE revenue up there. MK and the rest of the Dawn Patrol observed 15 minute lines to get a drink on Saturday...many folks gave up. Sunday night I counted at least two or three bartenders for about half as many customers. It seems that someone is really concerned about the "image" that they are trying to sell to a handful of people...and I think it is dragging down the rest of the ski area.

In sum, as we have joked, there are "two" Burke Mountains....one with a high speed quad, ski check, new lodge, blah trails, and crowds, and another with an understaffed, almost rundown lodge, a 20-year old chairlift that has had its moments, and authentic trails. One Burke Mountain where the focus is on the loyal skiers and riders and another which is obsessed with impressing a few people at the expense of the rest of the operation.

So there is some ambivalence in the management level I think...and yes, as pointed out, there is also a matching ambivalence amongst the skiers and riders. We are happy (to at least think) that the resort FINALLY has a deep pocketed owner who will keep it open. But we are scared as to what that owner will do....considering the enormous amount of infrastructure needs and capital needed to sustain a year round resort that does not exist right now.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Very impressed with the well written and thought out posts here on Burke.

 

[dropKickMurphy]

Well, it will be interesting to compare how things pan out at Burke and Saddleback over the next few years.

I'm actually pretty optimistic about Saddleback's chances..

I think the idea of making the new condos (relatively) affordable can open a broader market for them. I saw that the Phase 1 pricing for a 2 BR condo full ownership was just under 300K. The latest brochures I picked up at the mountain showed no more full ownerships available for Phase 1...only quarter shares.

That implies that they might be having more success selling the full ownerships than the shared. That really wouldn't surprise me. It's a long drive from the major population centers, which could make the quarter shares a tough sell. But I bet the (relatively) affordable prices are making them very attractive as potential retirement homes. For people who love the outdoors, it would be a great area to retire. Between the mountain and the Rangeley Lakes, you'd have plenty to do all year round. Kayaking, boating, fly fishing, swimming, backpacking, climbing, alpine skiing, nordic skiing. They don't need to build a new golf course...it's already a legitimate 4 season area.

The thing is, I don't think they have to do anything too grandiose to succeed. Instead of investing big $$$ in a HSQ, they are planning on putting in a number of fixed grip lifts. This should allow them to phase them in as the $$$ generated from the real estate sales allows.

I don't really think a HSQ is needed at Saddleback. They don't need to ferry a large number of people to a single point. What they do need are:

1) improved access to some of their existing terrain. Muleskinner is a great classic demanding New England trail, but the trip up the Kennebago T-Bar and the traverse along Dazzler make it as tough to get to as the drive from Boston to Rangeley. Although, I will be sad to see the Kennabago go. I'm glad I got a chance to ride it. Like the MRG single, it is truly a classic lift.

2) The opening of new terrain. Unlike most other ski areas, Saddleback has the luxury of a large amount of great undeveloped terrain within the boundaries of the area.By NE standards it is a big mountain, and the ski area owns 8000 acres of it. After the land swap and agreement with the ATC, and the LURC approval, they seem to be past the regulatory hurdles. The development new trail clusters around new fixed grip lifts (or even T-Bars) should keep the skiers well dispersed and the trails uncrowded.

Sorry if I sound like a salesman for Saddleback. I'm just a skier who's finding my tastes changing from the homogenous mega resorts to the classic areas that offer diverse terrain, less crowded trails, and better value. Places like Cannon and Saddleback. I'm planning to check out Magic and Burke in the near future. I'm hoping there's a way for places like this to remain financially viable without losing what makes them special and unique.

 

[the original trailboss]

the two Burke Mountains

Unfortunately, the two Burke Mountains were the work of late 70's general manager Gloria Chadwick who pooh-poohed suggestions that a single main base lodge be located in the vicinity of mid-Burke (roughly where the snow-making pond is now) with a lift running down from there to serve beginner/intermediate skiers and lifts going to the top of the mountain to service those skiers capable of handling that terrain. Chadwick, like EVERY owner since that time, thought mid-Burke should be destroyed. Her decision to put the Sherburne Lodge at the bottom has,since that time, colored every subsequent owner's plans. You only have to ski Burke once (before you get hooked!) to know that it truly is two distinct skiing areas for two distinct groups of skiing abilities. And you only have to ski Burke on a day like last Sunday to know that many (lots) of newbie Burke skiers don't belong on the upper mountain.
I am sure that no one on the Ginn "development" team would ever consider a single base lodge at mid-Burke because their current midset appears to be to make that part of their exclusive (as in exclude the most of us) resort. As I mentioned in earlier posts Ginn is interested in real estate development and the ski area and the golf course are amenities that they hope will help them sell real estate. While they will, and have to some degree already, try to placate local concerns and spread a little good will in the community (read their "community relations" person in the development office) they are tolerant of local issues/concerns only to the degree that it serves their purpose. If the community of East Burke is "destroyed" (hate to make it sound that fatalistic!) in order to create the access,etc they need then so be it. If creating a project with 1,024 homes in it in a town that currently has less that 700 houses in it then so be it. If paying double or more for specific peices of property in town in order to get what they want, and in the process creating a whole other set of real estate values (upon which Vermont's Act 60/68 bases the state-wide property tax system on) then so be it.
Ginn's first "general manager" Charlie Hardimann basically told the local chamber that Ginn was coming and they better get ready-fortunately he has moved on to another Ginn facility. I don't want to sound like the true,taciturn,native Vermonter that I really am but the community needs to pay attention to the reality/scope of this project before they found themselves swallowed up in the name of "progress" and becoming subservient to a monied clientele who expect to be treated as such.
Now, with all of that said, there remains the opportunity for the town AND Ginn to find enough commom ground to serve both without destroying either-a little of that old Vermont common sense and a little sensitivity on the part of Ginn could benefit all involved.
Enough for one session..........................................any comments?:smash::flame:

 

[kingdom-tele]

well said OTB and TB

people should get to burke now, because its coming and the current vibe will be phased out, along with the people that give it the vibe, when it comes to bottom lines and making money big business is like politics, say one thing and do another

and burke does not need a HSQ - a few repairs to the old quad would be fine, any faster and my buddies stories are going to last two rides instead of one, how fast do people drink beer anyways

 

[thetrailboss]

the original trailboss emphasized a lot of my points. I think that Mr. Hardimann did more damage to the resort. That kind of attitude will not work at all. Unfortunately there are still some that have that kind of take on things.....

It will be interesting again to see if the "skiing product" is improved before any development takes place.

And I think that this has been a great discussion....there seem to be a lot of posts on Burke and its development. I just wish we'd get some reply to them. Unfortunately some people up at the mountain don't take this board, or the comments on it, too seriously....which is unfortunate for them.

 

[thetrailboss]

Enough for one session..........................................any comments?:smash::flame:

Wow....the original trailboss using Emoticons??? Scary! :wink:

 

[f1kartracer]

For me knowing that Bobby Ginn is involved there I wouldnt go even if it was free. The reasons behind this is what and how he treated the employees on his Sprint cup teams to me he is nothing more than a robber baron!:uzi::uzi:

 

[riverc0il]

Regarding the two different lodges, I think it is perfect the way it is. Let the newbies, families, and first times experience the posh Sherburne lodge with its beginner trail High Speed Quad to access the intermediate and expert terrain. Then there is the mid-Burke for those that know the mountain and need direct access to the upper level terrain. My first impression skiing Burke before the HSQ.... I was very impressed with the separate beginners area. They can replace the mid-Burke lodge.... as long as they keep a lodge up there, fine by me and I appreciate the two different lodges. No way would they be able to maintain a nice Sherburne Lodge if they got rid of mid-Burke and did not replace it.... not enough room in there for all the guests, not to mention BSA.

This coming from someone that really appreciates fixed grips and is usually the last person on the HSQ bandwagon.... I disagree with kingdom-tele's assessment. The mountain truly needs a summit HSQ in order to thrive. They can make all the improvements to that mountain Ginn wants.... people won't come (in the numbers needed to sustain the resort) without a HSQ. Drop in a summit HSQ and Burke is finally on the map, IMO, as a "must ski" area. Probably would also make Boston Metro second home owners think twice about their Loon and Waterville area condos with a better resort and more charming and character rich area just 45 minutes north.

Personally, I think that quad is dirt slow and would prefer a faster chairlift rather than feeling the need to ride the poma most of the time when I ski solo. I love fixed grips but Burke needs a faster lift, and I don't say that lightly.

 

[deadheadskier]

Personally, I think that quad is dirt slow and would prefer a faster chairlift rather than feeling the need to ride the poma most of the time when I ski solo. I love fixed grips but Burke needs a faster lift, and I don't say that lightly.

man have you changed. I'm too lazy to dig them up, but I can recall several threads with you stating a preference for slower lifts. Keeps the traffic down on the trails resulting in better snow for longer, the longer ride gives your legs more time to recover...yada, yada


Now you've become Burke's biggest ambasador for a HSQ :lol: perhaps you'll be all for valet parking a few years from now to :lol:

 

[riverc0il]

man have you changed. I'm too lazy to dig them up, but I can recall several threads with you stating a preference for slower lifts. Keeps the traffic down on the trails resulting in better snow for longer, the longer ride gives your legs more time to recover...yada, yada


Now you've become Burke's biggest ambasador for a HSQ :lol: perhaps you'll be all for valet parking a few years from now to :lol:

Not really. Please dig up the post where I say that Burke can thrive without a HSQ. I do enjoy slow fixed grip lifts, as I said in my previous post. But Burke's summit lift even pushes my tolerance. If I can catch my breath before reaching the top of the mountain, something is wrong. Can't do that at MRG or Magic or Saddleback or.... just saying... I wouldn't suggest a HSQ at any of these other mountains. Also, I am solidly against HSQs replacing the Jet or Bonnie at Jay. I lothe HSQ in wind prone areas such as Cannon and Jay and prefer riding the Tomcat versus the HSQ at Wildcat (when the Tomcat is actually open). For my personal preferences, FWIW, I would enjoy a faster fixed grip at Burke... but that wouldn't get bean payers to the mountain. Burke is one of the few cases that I would argue in favor of a HSQ.

 

[thetrailboss]

Regarding the two different lodges, I think it is perfect the way it is. Let the newbies, families, and first times experience the posh Sherburne lodge with its beginner trail High Speed Quad to access the intermediate and expert terrain. Then there is the mid-Burke for those that know the mountain and need direct access to the upper level terrain. My first impression skiing Burke before the HSQ.... I was very impressed with the separate beginners area. They can replace the mid-Burke lodge.... as long as they keep a lodge up there, fine by me and I appreciate the two different lodges. No way would they be able to maintain a nice Sherburne Lodge if they got rid of mid-Burke and did not replace it.... not enough room in there for all the guests, not to mention BMA.

True, but the problem is that there is just not enough traffic to sustain two base areas most of the time....and on the weekends there is too much for one base area. Caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

[riverc0il]

I think with a real estate expansion and increased traffic due to more publicity and updated lifts, the weekends will have enough traffic for two lodges. Mid-week definitely not currently enough traffic to warrant to lodges, IMO, so I can see where locals are miffed that Mid-Burke does not have full skier services. I forgot my lunch last time I skied a mid-week full day at Burke and was not happy about having to head down to the Sherburne for lunch. But I think the expansion will increase traffic enough to justify the mid-Burke lodge location.

 

[stomachdoc]

I would imagine that Ginn is looking just as closely at how things progress at South Peak at Loon as they are at Saddleback. I would imagine that the success of South Peak would be a barometer for the market for similarly priced hi end development at Burke. As pointed out earlier in the thread, I'm sure that Ginn's main aim is to cannibalize the Boston market which right now is mostly devoted to Loon, Waterville and, to a lesser extent, Sunday River, Okemo, etc.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

If Ginn didn't purchase Burke there is a 50/50 chance IMHO it would now be on the NELSAP list.

One major diference between Saddleback and Burke IS the type of ownership.

 

[deadheadskier]

Not really. Please dig up the post where I say that Burke can thrive without a HSQ. I do enjoy slow fixed grip lifts, as I said in my previous post. But Burke's summit lift even pushes my tolerance. If I can catch my breath before reaching the top of the mountain, something is wrong. Can't do that at MRG or Magic or Saddleback or.... just saying... I wouldn't suggest a HSQ at any of these other mountains. Also, I am solidly against HSQs replacing the Jet or Bonnie at Jay. I lothe HSQ in wind prone areas such as Cannon and Jay and prefer riding the Tomcat versus the HSQ at Wildcat (when the Tomcat is actually open). For my personal preferences, FWIW, I would enjoy a faster fixed grip at Burke... but that wouldn't get bean payers to the mountain. Burke is one of the few cases that I would argue in favor of a HSQ.

I wasn't necessairly referring to a Burke specific opinion of yours. You very well may have argued for it in the past. I think the conversation was a couple of years ago in reference to the Madonna lift at Smuggs. That thing is painfully long, I want to say 17 minutes. I was of the opinion to replace it with a HSQ and you were against it. Perhaps ala Clemens, I am 'mis-remembering' :lol:. I just know that typically you are against High Speed lifts, so reading your support of one here was a bit suprising to me. That said, perhaps you've had that opinion of the need at Burke all along and this is the first I've read of it.

Speaking of Smuggs though, if they can thrive without a HSQ summit lift, why couldn't Burke do the same? Smuggs does have the advantage of a larger local population to draw business from, but there bread and butter is hosting families in slopeside accommodations. Couldn't Burke follow this model as well and thrive?

 

[ski_resort_observer]

I wasn't necessairly referring to a Burke specific opinion of yours. You very well may have argued for it in the past. I think the conversation was a couple of years ago in reference to the Madonna lift at Smuggs. That thing is painfully long, I want to say 17 minutes. I was of the opinion to replace it with a HSQ and you were against it. Perhaps ala Clemens, I am 'mis-remembering' :lol:. I just know that typically you are against High Speed lifts, so reading your support of one here was a bit suprising to me. That said, perhaps you've had that opinion of the need at Burke all along and this is the first I've read of it.

Speaking of Smuggs though, if they can thrive without a HSQ summit lift, why couldn't Burke do the same? Smuggs does have the advantage of a larger local population to draw business from, but there bread and butter is hosting families in slopeside accommodations. Couldn't Burke follow this model as well and thrive?

Smuggs has the advantage of being rated at the top of the ratings for "family resorts" in the annual Ski mag reader surveys and has integrated that position in their marketing for the last 10 years with great success. It's a very busy place in the summer, a key component in the success of any ski resort. People belittle the Ski survey results but to any resort's management it's important.

Burke, conversly, is barely on the map, brandwise. A new twist is that Smuggs is in a great location to take advantage of the increase in visitation by our neighbors to the north.

 

[thetrailboss]

Speaking of Smuggs though, if they can thrive without a HSQ summit lift, why couldn't Burke do the same? Smuggs does have the advantage of a larger local population to draw business from, but there bread and butter is hosting families in slopeside accommodations. Couldn't Burke follow this model as well and thrive?

Burke has a lot of infrastructure to build just to be able to fill this niche...the condos are not under mountain control right now. And there is no pool or indoor rec facility. Good idea though....

And as to the NELSAP comment, I think that if it were not for BMA, or specifically one its major benefactors, then the mountain would be on NELSAP.