• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

New Resort Moving Forward in Utah: Mayflower Resort

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
Deer Valley has long planned an expansion towards Jordanelle Reservoir. Anyone who has been to DV lately has seen their models in the base area near the realty offices showing the proposed expansion. Now it appears that another resort is going forward in the area. Extell Development Company is moving forward with the Mayflower Resort, which is separate and apart from Deer Valley. I am not sure if DV sold or leased whatever they owned in this area, or if this is a separate project on different land (according to one article, Extell purchased this area in November 2017, or right after Alterra bought DV).

https://www.ksl.com/article/46616589/new-billion-dollar-ski-resort-coming-to-utah

https://www.deseret.com/2019/8/12/2...full-service-ski-resort-in-country-since-1980

https://fox13now.com/2019/08/12/tak...te-of-the-upcoming-mayflower-mountain-resort/

$1 billion investment. They have broken ground. 1,000 vertical foot descent. Three hotels and a conference center. Mainly beginner skier focused. Not clear if there will be snowboarding.

The developer says it will be "2/3 the size of Deer Valley." I'm not sure what that means...perhaps he meant 2/3 the vertical drop.

One other thing you will notice is that this has a military angle to it. The reason for this is that way back in the late 1990's Hill Air Force Base used to have a cabin on the land of what is now Snowbasin for folks to use. When Snowbasin expanded, they had to find another piece of land for the military to use for recreation. The powers to be agreed that a portion of this tract of land would be that new home and they wanted to at least build a modest hotel for soldiers to use. Now 20 plus years later it looks like there will be something.
 

FBGM

Active member
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
694
Points
43
Yay for low angle south east facing terrain

Where they getting snowmaking from? Jordenelle? Great...

This will be the lowest elevation ski area in Utah with the worst aspect and probably lowest yearly snowfall totals. I’d expect it to have almost 100% snowmaking and open from Xmas to end March.

Wasatxh county don’t give a fuck. That area is blown up and getting to be trash.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
Yay for low angle south east facing terrain

Where they getting snowmaking from? Jordenelle? Great...

This will be the lowest elevation ski area in Utah with the worst aspect and probably lowest yearly snowfall totals. I’d expect it to have almost 100% snowmaking and open from Xmas to end March.

Wasatxh county don’t give a fuck. That area is blown up and getting to be trash.

So there is a positive review. :lol:

Agree that it has bad exposure.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
11,403
Points
83
Location
PRNJ
I wonder what the demand is for 1,000 foot vertical ski area is in the Wasatch? That's basically Blue Mountain in the Poconos or Plattekill in the Catskills, but dumped into the largest ski mecca in the US. Seems very odd, and I have a feeling the ski resort was a necessary evil for them to build eleventy-billion units of retail & residential via-a-vis the military aspect of a required military ski area. In other words, my guess is there be be NO ski area if they could just do the massive development without a ski area.

That said, frankly, an area like this would be BETTER for the average beginner skier than going to one of the brand name ski resorts like Snowbird or Deer Valley, but the average beginner doesn't know enough to know this.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
11,403
Points
83
Location
PRNJ
That area is blown up and getting to be trash.

I think "trash" is a wee-bit of an overstatement, but the level of construction build going on right now is positively staggering, and I would 100% agree, alarming.

My wife & I were there 4 months ago & drove around pretty-much everywhere you can drive around the Back (Heber, Midway, Kamas, Francis, Wanship, Woodland, Coalville, etc..), and it did not matter where you went, construction & trucks & cranes were EVERYWHERE. Mostly residential builds, but also new box store footprints and strip malls as well. At a certain point (and soon) you'd hope someone local would step-in and realize that if they dont protect some open space the Wasatch Back is going to look like the Wasatch Front.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
11,403
Points
83
Location
PRNJ
He said he’s not sure how much ski terrain will be available, but he expects around two-thirds of the terrain at Deer Valley and several lifts that rise about 1,000 feet.

"We're actually in the midst of studying exactly what kind of skiing we can provide, and I think will determine that the next several months," Barnett said.

^From one of TTB's linked articles:

So yeah, a ski resort is just a necessary evil here, and methinks that doesn't bode well for the quality of the ski offerings, but hopefully I'll be wrong about that.
 

FBGM

Active member
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
694
Points
43
I think "trash" is a wee-bit of an overstatement, but the level of construction build going on right now is positively staggering, and I would 100% agree, alarming.

My wife & I were there 4 months ago & drove around pretty-much everywhere you can drive around the Back (Heber, Midway, Kamas, Francis, Wanship, Woodland, Coalville, etc..), and it did not matter where you went, construction & trucks & cranes were EVERYWHERE. Mostly residential builds, but also new box store footprints and strip malls as well. At a certain point (and soon) you'd hope someone local would step-in and realize that if they dont protect some open space the Wasatch Back is going to look like the Wasatch Front.

It’s the difference between summit and wasatch counties. Wasatch county doesn’t care. Hence the blow up right over the county line. This shit won’t fly in summit county.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
It’s the difference between summit and wasatch counties. Wasatch county doesn’t care. Hence the blow up right over the county line. This shit won’t fly in summit county.

It's all about the $$$$.
 

FBGM

Active member
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
694
Points
43
Real estate ski area with a connect to Dear Valley is the name of the game here. Lakeside properties too I imagine.

No lake front. It’s a reservoir. I also think their property is most or all on the west side of 40
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
11,403
Points
83
Location
PRNJ
No lake front. It’s a reservoir. I also think their property is most or all on the west side of 40

Yes, and there's already some roads going in. When I was there a few months back I was wondering WTH was going to go in there, now I know.
 

AdironRider

Active member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,249
Points
38
How is MIDA getting 75% of all tax revenue for 40 years, plus the discounted rooms as promised not getting what was promised?

It amazes me how any new ski development is automatically labeled a boondoggle and a waste. This extension of DV for all intents and purposes is not the end of the world.
 

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
814
Points
63
How is MIDA getting 75% of all tax revenue for 40 years, plus the discounted rooms as promised not getting what was promised?

It amazes me how any new ski development is automatically labeled a boondoggle and a waste. This extension of DV for all intents and purposes is not the end of the world.

It doesn’t bother me one bit. I look at the Wasatch as a lost cause as far as “saving it” from the masses. This why I’m also for the One.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
How is MIDA getting 75% of all tax revenue for 40 years, plus the discounted rooms as promised not getting what was promised?

It amazes me how any new ski development is automatically labeled a boondoggle and a waste. This extension of DV for all intents and purposes is not the end of the world.

Read the op-ed. His concern is the lack of oversight and the fact that the local county has no say as to land use and their local regs. Also see that the MIDA board are not accountable to anyone.
 

AdironRider

Active member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,249
Points
38
Read the op-ed. His concern is the lack of oversight and the fact that the local county has no say as to land use and their local regs. Also see that the MIDA board are not accountable to anyone.

I read it, where do you think I got those numbers. None of these are new, the setup has been in place since the Olympics were at Solitude.

That entire op-ed is one nimby manifesto. He claims there is a massive subsidy, but there isn't one at all. They just don't get to keep 75% of the tax revenue, which again, is not new, nor is it a subsidy.
 
Last edited:

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
I read it, where do you think I got those numbers. None of these are new, the setup has been in place since the Olympics were at Solitude.

That entire op-ed is one nimby manifesto. He claims there is a massive subsidy, but there isn't one at all. They just don't get to keep 75% of the tax revenue, which again, is not new, nor is it a subsidy.

Must be knife sales are slow for you today. And the Olympics were not at Solitude, Mr. Know-it-All.

His concerns again are that this is another illustration of how local control is not a thing. The subsidy comment is in regards to the property tax revenue not going to the county. And the bigger context is that folks are trying to do the same thing with the inland port. It is not at all about NIMBY--the guy lives in SLC. Besides those issues, I don't think anyone thought that a small cabin would be exchanged for a $1 billion development. I think he raises some fair questions.

Honestly I don't care one way or the other, but a lot of us don't think it is prime ski terrain or is going to be anything really to write home about.
 
Last edited:
Top