ski_resort_observer
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,423
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Waitsfield,Vt
- Website
- www.firstlightphotographics.com
-
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!
SP Land starts process for new Kmart village
- Thread starter ski_resort_observer
- Start date
o3jeff
New member
Exactly, I'll have to keep my eyes out for the plans if or when this goes out to bid. I remember seeing the Peak Lodge go out for bid in January.
SkiDork
New member
Jets win Super Bowl? Or Killington Village? Which one first? hmmmmm......
Zand
Well-known member
ski_resort_observer
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,423
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Waitsfield,Vt
- Website
- www.firstlightphotographics.com
Should take about 4/5 years, most of you should be alive, technically. It has nothing to do with the mountain so I don't get your McSkiing comment. It will add more people/beds but with kmart's skier visits down 25% from 20 years ago I don't see it ruining anything other than you will find it harder to find a parking space when you get there at the crack of noon. :wink: Actually more parking is in the plan. Personally I don't see the inter-connect ever happening. The cost/benefit analysis is way negetive in my view.
Regarding Stowe, they needed some slopeside lodging. No way they could put it on the Mansfield side so they went with what they had. The lift over the road connecting Spruce with Mansfield was something they needed for years. Again, it changed little regarding the actual ski trails. Stowe has been owned by AIG, started by C.V. Starr, for decades. It's a huge global company headquartered in NYC, enough said.
Highway Star
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,921
- Points
- 36
LOL. Really? If anything the village is a huge waste of time and money with little chance of recovering the costs. They are talking over $500/sqft for the real estate......good luck with that!!!! ROFL. Chances are they will NEVER build it, and if they do they'll end up firesaling most of it...there just isn't any real premium market at Killington, and there is a glut of properties. Even with an overall recovery in the economy and the real estate market, Killington has WAY too much housing stock since they are down on skier visits by about 40% over the past decade, and prices will be some of the cheapest. They are like the Detroit of the ski industry.
The interconnect could cost between $5-10 million and massively boost skier visits and profits, they'd have it paid off in 5 years.
Last edited:
MadPadraic
Active member
Why?
mediamogul
New member
I hope not...
Wavewheeler
New member
Ick, More condos. 
uke:
uke:oakapple
New member
It'll happen. Current management is normally rather reticent about long-term plans, and Nyberg has said quite openly that he expects to build it, and they continue to renew the permits. There are very few ski areas in the Northeast that can add terrain, which makes the Interconnect uniquely valuable. And Killington very much wants to retain its "biggest in the East" title. They would easily make back the investment.
I have no idea whether it WILL happen, but you should certainly WANT it to happen. If you like skiing, anything that attracts more people to the sport is to your benefit. Contraction or non-growth of the sport is to your detriment.Ick, More condos.
If you are a ski snob (which I am guessing you are), there are probably some types of skiers that you don't like. Unfortunately, you need them, even if you don't realize it. The people who will stay in those condos will spend money at the mountain, which allows the resort to thrive.
I don't know when "condo" became a four-letter word. People who visit the mountain gotta stay somewhere, unless you only want day-trippers, which is awfully limiting.
Wavewheeler
New member
I'm far from a ski snob. I just hate the look of condos anywher, be it at the beach or the mountain. But even so, I've stayed at condos on the slopes and it is nice to be able to have that option.
I agree with what you say. Growth is good when it comes to this sport. What you say makes perfect sense. But I still don't like the look of condos, despite their benefits. I guess you could call it a necessary evil.
riverc0il
New member
There is a difference between second/third sale second homes off mountain and brand new premium slopeside real estate. These are two different markets. And while the economy is still suspect for those that could afford to purchase a second home off mountain, the economy is doing really well right now for the upper class high roller crowd.
I see a different problem and that is over saturation of offerings. Claybrook went up a while back and now Sugarbush is building another slopeside development. Spruce Peak at Stowe just went up a few years ago. Haystack is reemerging as a private ski resort offering, and Killington is going to build on top of those already established plans? There are only so many uber rich high rollers to go after. Eventually, the market will be saturated.
oakapple
New member
I think they are looking at a 20-25 year horizon, a time period that will no doubt see numerous boom/recession cycles. I think they realize that the economy right now is just barely above water.
Killington is quite a bit closer for the NY/Mass./Conn. market than Stowe or Sugarbush, and Haystack will remain a thimble-sized resort compared to Killington. They all have their charms, but Killington will always be the 800 pound gorilla if it's intelligently marketed. I also think you may be mistaken in the assumption that the "uber rich high rollers" are the target market segment.
I think the interconnect is a foolish idea. The village makes sense for Killington. Their lodging portfolio is somewhat old and dated and doesn't offer the ski in, ski out access that resorts like Okemo and Sunday River have. Putting in a village similar to that of say Spruce Peak at Stowe would be great for the mountain. I don't think it would be good for the town though. Spruce Peak at Stowe certainly hasn't been good for the town. There are fewer restaurants, bars and retail shops in town now then when I lived there 12 years ago and the restaurant and lodging properties that are still open don't do as much business as they did pre-Spruce. The access road businesses at K will take a similar hit with a slopeside village project IMO.
The reason I don't think the interconnect makes sense is that I don't believe Killington attracts enough skier visits to support it. Connecting the two areas won't increase business much unless the interconnect includes substantial cruising terrain, something Killington currently lacks and their competition has. Now, if they build that type of terrain, instead of just having a couple of trails and a lift in between the two areas, the overhead requirements go through the roof. Sacrifices will have to be made at other areas of the mountain to balance the business. I'd imagine reduced operations at Bear and the Skyeship as well as numerous trails seeing less or no snowmaking at all. Look at how upset people are this year at the number of snowmaking trails that didn't see any snow made. That will be the norm during even average snow years, not the exception during very bad snow years like this one.
Calling it now, if the interconnect goes through the Killington = Fail threads increase by 100%. The initial reaction will be positive, but eventually people will become upset at reduced operations elsewhere on the hill and then wonder why they were so concerned with being able to ski between the two areas in the first place. By itself, Killington already is the largest ski area in the East. I won't consider Sugarloaf to be larger until they offer a lift on Burnt Mountain. It's plenty big enough. Improving what they already with such things as the new Peak Lodge, a base village, new lifts is what the place needs; not increased skiable acreage.
The interconnect is a novel idea, but unless the skiing population grows tremendously (which it hasn't for 30 years), then there simply won't be the business to support it.
The reason I don't think the interconnect makes sense is that I don't believe Killington attracts enough skier visits to support it. Connecting the two areas won't increase business much unless the interconnect includes substantial cruising terrain, something Killington currently lacks and their competition has. Now, if they build that type of terrain, instead of just having a couple of trails and a lift in between the two areas, the overhead requirements go through the roof. Sacrifices will have to be made at other areas of the mountain to balance the business. I'd imagine reduced operations at Bear and the Skyeship as well as numerous trails seeing less or no snowmaking at all. Look at how upset people are this year at the number of snowmaking trails that didn't see any snow made. That will be the norm during even average snow years, not the exception during very bad snow years like this one.
Calling it now, if the interconnect goes through the Killington = Fail threads increase by 100%. The initial reaction will be positive, but eventually people will become upset at reduced operations elsewhere on the hill and then wonder why they were so concerned with being able to ski between the two areas in the first place. By itself, Killington already is the largest ski area in the East. I won't consider Sugarloaf to be larger until they offer a lift on Burnt Mountain. It's plenty big enough. Improving what they already with such things as the new Peak Lodge, a base village, new lifts is what the place needs; not increased skiable acreage.
The interconnect is a novel idea, but unless the skiing population grows tremendously (which it hasn't for 30 years), then there simply won't be the business to support it.
