Resort Expansions?

[andyzee]

I could understand concern for othere income, survival of resort, etc..., but as a community of skiers I was wondering how much resort expansion matters to you. I'm not talking about expansion of trails, lifts, etc..... I'm talking about hotels, restaurants, shops.......... To me, I couldn't care less, I'm there to ski.

 

[Vortex]

AndyZee... Whats this good question stuff?:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I have concerns about Loon's Expansion due to traffic on the roads and what it will do to property values.

I'm glad they are expanding, but I'm more interested in what happends to the community and infrastructure.

The expansion is more about property develpement than the ski area as I see it.

I have concerns, but expansion is necessary and something I'm glad is happening on the mountain.

 

[stomachdoc]

Bob is right (as usual). You can't have ski area (trails and lifts) development without the development of real estate, shopping, etc. The ROI for real estate, etc. is huge, while the ROI from lifts, trails and lodges is minimal. Loon and Waterville are great examples; Loon has developable real estate and is expanding, Waterville has no developable land and has been largely ignored by Booth Creek.

 

[Greg]

I think if off-trail amenities contribute to the viability of a ski area/resort, then I'm all for it. Staying slope-side or in lodging close to the mountain during a multi-day trip rules it. As far as restaurants I like a good bar/grill type place to eat lunch at a ski area. Places like Christiansen's at Jiminy, Gheppeto's at the Loaf, or the old Mushroom at the Bush are my kind of haunt. I suspect the new Castlerock Pub at the Bush will be my kind of place. I'd much rather spend $10 or $15 for a good bar burger than $8 or $9 for a crappy one at some cafeteria. My wife is a recreational skier so shops and other things to do with the kids are welcome when on a multi-day trip. For day trips when I'm skiing alone or with the guys, I could care less about all that stuff.

 

[Vortex]

Bob is right (as usual). You can't have ski area (trails and lifts) development without the development of real estate, shopping, etc. The ROI for real estate, etc. is huge, while the ROI from lifts, trails and lodges is minimal. Loon and Waterville are great examples; Loon has developable real estate and is expanding, Waterville has no developable land and has been largely ignored by Booth Creek.

Hey don't forget who is the doc and who is the ski bum.:smash: I would prefer to be succesful than right.;-)

How did the bbts event go? and you never told us what it ment.

My wife took my daughter to ski fanatics to get her new boots Sunday. Don told her to walk around in them... she did... came back with a new ski outfit.
If I could only get her to ski that easy.:-D

 

[andyzee]

As far as expansion goes, I believe there is good and bad in it and like everything else it needs to be controlled. As a society we have developed too much of a corporate mentality. What that mentality tells us is to constantly increase profits. For ski resorts this is done by investing in businesses around the resort. To a certain extent this makes sense. Hotels, shops, restaurants, clubs all can be profitable ventures. However, in a bad season they can also add to huge losses, a bad season can be snow conditions or economic conditions.

My belief is that a ski resort on it's own can make money in both good and bad seasons on ticket sales alone. Corporate mentality tells us that those profits should be far greater. By investing in other ventures profits are indeed raised, but in bad times, I think the first thing to go are hotel visits, restaurant visits, shop purchases, people may still make day trips but cut back on the other items, yet the expense of running these ventures doesn't go away.

That loss then effects budget for operation of the mountain itself, which could in effect cause worse conditions and less visits(catch 22) In the case of corporations such as ASC, it gets even worst because profits made at Killington not only cover losses incurred by business there, but also cover losses in other areas such as Colorado and Utah. Bottom line, it is my belief that resort ventures, outside of the mountain itself, should be kept to a minimum.

 

[RISkier]

I view it as a mixed bag though I recognize that it's often what generates income for the resort. My wife and I seem to prefer "real" towns. For example, we like places like Jackson, NH, Woodstock, VT, Stowe, VT. OTH, we're not so big on the purpose built villages like Stratton. We fear that developments like what's happening at Spruce Peak at Stowe will detract from the character of the place. But there's not a heck of lot we can do about it.

 

[dmc]

Well said..
Resort expnsion is sometimes WAY TOO unilateral...

As far as expansion goes, I believe there is good and bad in it and like everything else it needs to be controlled. As a society we have developed too much of a corporate mentality. What that mentality tells us is to constantly increase profits. For ski resorts this is done by investing in businesses around the resort. To a certain extent this makes sense. Hotels, shops, restaurants, clubs all can be profitable ventures. However, in a bad season they can also add to huge losses, a bad season can be snow conditions or economic conditions.

My belief is that a ski resort on it's own can make money in both good and bad seasons on ticket sales alone. Corporate mentality tells us that those profits should be far greater. By investing in other ventures profits are indeed raised, but in bad times, I think the first thing to go are hotel visits, restaurant visits, shop purchases, people may still make day trips but cut back on the other items, yet the expense of running these ventures doesn't go away.

That loss then effects budget for operation of the mountain itself, which could in effect cause worse conditions and less visits(catch 22) In the case of corporations such as ASC, it gets even worst because profits made at Killington not only cover losses incurred by business there, but also cover losses in other areas such as Colorado and Utah. Bottom line, it is my belief that resort ventures, outside of the mountain itself, should be kept to a minimum.

 

[Rushski]

Look at loon, after all this time talking about expansion they are adding a handful of trails and many more condo units...

Just what they need. Wonder why I still steer clear of there?

 

[stomachdoc]

Hey don't forget who is the doc and who is the ski bum.:smash: I would prefer to be succesful than right.;-)

How did the bbts event go? and you never told us what it ment.

My wife took my daughter to ski fanatics to get her new boots Sunday. Don told her to walk around in them... she did... came back with a new ski outfit.
If I could only get her to ski that easy.:-D

BBTS = Black and Blue Tree Smashers


Apparently named because the first trail cut up Tecumseh by the CCC was very narrow....

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

Bob is right (as usual). You can't have ski area (trails and lifts) development without the development of real estate, shopping, etc. The ROI for real estate, etc. is huge, while the ROI from lifts, trails and lodges is minimal. Loon and Waterville are great examples; Loon has developable real estate and is expanding, Waterville has no developable land and has been largely ignored by Booth Creek.

What has always been my question is: If a resort only makes an acceptable ROI when it is able to sell real estate, what happens when the run out of real estate?

Many areas (even companies...a la Intrawest) seem to get sold when they near the point where their real estate market matures. (That, or they go belly up, like the Crotch, back in 1990).

Back to the original question, I'd rather have a stand alone ski area. I just want to ski. (But as I've said MANY times, ski areas don't make money off of me.)

 

[Vortex]

Thankx stomac doc. Black and blue tree smashers, don't think I would have guessed that one.:lol:

 

[thetrailboss]

I had voted that I did not care. I understand that it is a necessary evil though. :roll:

 

[stomachdoc]

Hey 'Boss....

Any Burke news lately? I assume that the Mid Burke-Summit HSQ won't go in until the hotel location is finalized. Has Ginn gotten building permits yet? What is the time line for starting the projects?

 

[andyzee]

Well seems pretty clear that a majority, of AZ posters anyway, don't really care about such expansion. Would be nice if resorts start working more on the slopes and bragging less about hotels. :roll:

 

[dmc]

Well seems pretty clear that a majority, of AZ posters anyway, don't really care about such expansion. Would be nice if resorts start working more on the slopes and bragging less about hotels. :roll:

Done correctly - Real estate pays for trail expansion...
Opening a new trail doesn't make $$$... Real estate does...

Hunter's potential upcoming expansion is due to the great sales on their new real estate projects..

 

[ChileMass]

As a golfer and skier, I get to enjoy hanging out at some of my favorite mountains year-round, so I am all in favor of that. As a parent of school-age kids and the husband of a wife who like ski-in/ski-out accommodations, I like convenient slopeside condos. As a guy who likes going to a nice restaurant when on vacation, a good selction of eateries is great to have. So I answered "yes" that I usually always follow ski resort development programs.