• 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

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
11,403
Points
83
Location
PRNJ
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.

I mean, as far as boondoggle's go, this is clearly pretty boondoggleley.

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.

ONE Wasatch needs to happen. I'm 100% convinced that the marketing advantage this would confer would be worth millions annually to the Utah economy.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
11,403
Points
83
Location
PRNJ
Yay for low angle south east facing terrain

Agree that it has bad exposure.

The proposed map was shared on unofficial, and probably 50% is either due north to a north, northeast facing, which is actually a solid terrain direction. The other chunks are closer to a due east direction, but not much looks to be facing in a snow-consuming southerly direction.


With the lower elevation, however, I'm guessing they're going to have to invest a decent bit in snowmaking or resolve to simply close this area earlier than neighboring areas. Tough to say from eyeballing maps, but I'm guessing about 6,600 to about 7,600 is how they're arriving at 1,000 feet in vertical.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
18,188
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
Seems like the business strategy is as follows. Under the premise that there just isn't a ton more undeveloped slope side land available through Deer Valley anymore, and yet there's still decent demand for properties, bot new and resale at Deer Valley, let alone across the entire Park City resorts area.

Develop more ski terrain adjacent to Deer Valley, and then hope say Alterra comes in and buys the ski resort part once it's up and running, and then either keep, or sell off the home sight development rights to a buyer, or just keep on selling lots to buyers yourself.

Many, many people who buy and own at Deer Valley, enjoy the sport for sure, but don't need extreme terrain or the desire to ski 7 days a week themselves, but would rather ski on the "good" days and then have a place that is enticing enough to get their family and/or friends out to stay with them and enjoy their home and the region
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
The proposed map was shared on unofficial, and probably 50% is either due north to a north, northeast facing, which is actually a solid terrain direction. The other chunks are closer to a due east direction, but not much looks to be facing in a snow-consuming southerly direction.


With the lower elevation, however, I'm guessing they're going to have to invest a decent bit in snowmaking or resolve to simply close this area earlier than neighboring areas. Tough to say from eyeballing maps, but I'm guessing about 6,600 to about 7,600 is how they're arriving at 1,000 feet in vertical.

Yeah it’s the elevation that seems to be the issue. For some reason that side really lacks snow.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
Seems like the business strategy is as follows. Under the premise that there just isn't a ton more undeveloped slope side land available through Deer Valley anymore, and yet there's still decent demand for properties, bot new and resale at Deer Valley, let alone across the entire Park City resorts area.

Develop more ski terrain adjacent to Deer Valley, and then hope say Alterra comes in and buys the ski resort part once it's up and running, and then either keep, or sell off the home sight development rights to a buyer, or just keep on selling lots to buyers yourself.

Many, many people who buy and own at Deer Valley, enjoy the sport for sure, but don't need extreme terrain or the desire to ski 7 days a week themselves, but would rather ski on the "good" days and then have a place that is enticing enough to get their family and/or friends out to stay with them and enjoy their home and the region

FYI it’s been reported that DV has a lease with these folks. It’s not clear who is playing what role.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
814
Points
63
The whole access to DV combined with military benefits is kind of odd. There’s gotta be a huge tax break there or something for the developers
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
11,403
Points
83
Location
PRNJ
The whole access to DV combined with military benefits is kind of odd. There’s gotta be a huge tax break there or something for the developers

I'm pretty sure that's the straw that stirs the drink. It seems to be a bizarre, old, long-open ski real estate loophole whereby cheap skiing essentially "needed" to be offered somewhere to our troops. In other words, and I could be 100% incorrect on this, but it seems from reading-between-the-lines that if not for this odd military/ski thing, I don't think this new development could have happened.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
30,314
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
The whole access to DV combined with military benefits is kind of odd. There’s gotta be a huge tax break there or something for the developers

Bingo. Again, this started out as a landswap for the Hill AFB personnel who lost a very rustic mountain cabin and has somehow mushroomed into a $1 billion project that can be fasttracked. The only obligation on the developers is to provide military folks a discount. What I have seen and read is a very modest discount at best.
 

FBGM

Active member
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
694
Points
43
The proposed map was shared on unofficial, and probably 50% is either due north to a north, northeast facing, which is actually a solid terrain direction. The other chunks are closer to a due east direction, but not much looks to be facing in a snow-consuming southerly direction.


With the lower elevation, however, I'm guessing they're going to have to invest a decent bit in snowmaking or resolve to simply close this area earlier than neighboring areas. Tough to say from eyeballing maps, but I'm guessing about 6,600 to about 7,600 is how they're arriving at 1,000 feet in vertical.

The only north aspects are the north sides of some ridges/spines. Rest is pretty much due east mixed with south east. It’s garbage exposure and elevation. End of story.
 

mbedle

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
1,697
Points
48
Location
Barto, Pennsylvania
The only north aspects are the north sides of some ridges/spines. Rest is pretty much due east mixed with south east. It’s garbage exposure and elevation. End of story.

End of story, except what is the chance that Mayflower's negotiated lease with Dear Valley includes access to the two lifts they own the land under on the upper mountain...
 

mbedle

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
1,697
Points
48
Location
Barto, Pennsylvania
Mayflower.jpg

Interesting to note that very little of the proposed trails will be located on either southeastern or southern exposed terrain (hill shade on the pic is south).
 

FBGM

Active member
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
694
Points
43
I play golf at Solider Hollow every Sunday in summer and pass this. Was empty all summer and came to quite the hold/stop. About September-ish they started back up. Nothing more then dirt work at base last I saw. Long ways to go. The exit is State work I think and that’s been slow and steady. That road across connecting 40 to 248 is done. They gonna develop the shit out of that.

In general, I still think this project/ski area is horrible. Crap location, elevation, aspect, and just a front for more hotels that we have no need for. I was hoping it failed there during Covid time.
 
Top