The "Sugarbush Thread"

[Hawk]

Interesting. I wonder how that effects the EB5 deal. Personally, I think this would be a good thing. I see how popular the hotel at Jay is. They are always full with the events they have coupled with the off mountain facilities like the water park and the ice rink. This will be good for convention groups and Weddings on top of skiers in the winter.

 

[thetrailboss]

I have not been to Sugarbush now for seven years, but a spa would be a good idea. It will be a good weatherproof option for them.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[benski]

Probably a smart move. The demand for the high end condos they've been building just isn't there.

This might be the building E in the Gadd brook/Rice brook plans. Thats the one that goes at the base of the old Valley House. It was always supposed to be a hotel, with something else on the first floor, maybe the spa and conference center. Letters a-d referred to condo developments, A-rice brook, B Gadd Brook, and C/d were lower down/ on the side lot. But this hotel sounds bigger than a remember building E.

 

[cdskier]

This might be the building E in the Gadd brook/Rice brook plans. Thats the one that goes at the base of the old Valley House. It was always supposed to be a hotel, with something else on the first floor, maybe the spa and conference center. Letters a-d referred to condo developments, A-rice brook, B Gadd Brook, and C/d were lower down/ on the side lot. But this hotel sounds bigger than a remember building E.

Could but, but it does sound like it would be different than what they originally planned for building E. Building E originally had only 30 studio/hotel rooms in it with mixed use space on the 1st floor.

To add context, here's what was said in the e-mail from Sugarbush:

While we had envisioned building additional condominiums, we are now in the process of rethinking the best use of the land in the base area and are thinking that a conference center with a hotel and spa is what is most in demand.

To me this sounds like they want to change the latest Master Plan a bit.

In other news, did anyone know GMVS was widening the lower portion of the Brambles trail? They received the ACT250 approval last week.

 

[benski]

In other news, did anyone know GMVS was widening the lower portion of the Brambles trail? They received the ACT250 approval last week.

That sounds so uncalled for. I have been hoping for a while they would let half that section of Brambles fill in so the whole trail is narrow.

 

[cdskier]

That sounds so uncalled for. I have been hoping for a while they would let half that section of Brambles fill in so the whole trail is narrow.

Here's the reasoning:

The improvements to the existing Brambles trail at Sugarbush Resort will provide improved race training for GMVS students and improved terrain for all skiers. The proposed width of the trail widening is necessary in order for the race hill to be homologated/approved by the ski racing governing authorities – FIS and U.S. Ski and Snowboard. Homologation approval will enable the trail to be used as a Giant Slalom racing venue. This approval requires a minimum width of 50 meters and the project proposes improving the trail to this width. The proposed width will provide for appropriate space to erect safety fencing and will provide industry standard distances between gate placement, race fencing/netting and fixed obstacles such as snow guns and trees. By maintaining these standards, the trail will be able to be used safely for races, training and all skiers.

 

[thetrailboss]

That sounds so uncalled for. I have been hoping for a while they would let half that section of Brambles fill in so the whole trail is narrow.

Wasn’t it widened recently? Like in the last ten years or so?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[cdskier]

Wasn’t it widened recently? Like in the last ten years or so?

2004 according to the ACT 250 database. I couldn't find specifics in that older approval of the plans for exactly which part was widened and by how much though (looks like maybe not all the files pertaining to the approval were uploaded to the ACT250 db for that entry).

 

[benski]

2004 according to the ACT 250 database. I couldn't find specifics in that older approval of the plans for exactly which part was widened and by how much though (looks like maybe not all the files pertaining to the approval were uploaded to the ACT250 db for that entry).

From here is it in 2003
Here is it in 2006

 

[tumbler]

I've given up on Brambles as a trail for a while now. The woods are fun but the trail is closed so often and it is not worth getting yelled at for poaching by the GMVS coaches at the bottom. They should just change the name of trail.

 

[benski]

I've given up on Brambles as a trail for a while now. The woods are fun but the trail is closed so often and it is not worth getting yelled at for poaching by the GMVS coaches at the bottom. They should just change the name of trail.

Sugarbush needs to recon with GMVS about that. Often when the trail is closed, GMVS is only using half of inverness, and for some reason likes to use the left side, which blocks off brambles.

 

[ThinkSnow]

Why not just extend Brambles so it doesn't intersect with Inverness?

 

[benski]

Why not just extend Brambles so it doesn't intersect with Inverness?

It would be really complex. There is a creek skiers left of brambles and inverness, and you would probably need a large bridge to cross it. There are homes pretty close to inverness on the other side, so I assume the property line fallows the creek.

 

[cdskier]

Why not just extend Brambles so it doesn't intersect with Inverness?

Sort of irrelevant for non-racers considering they want to use Brambles for racing anyway as that seems to be their primary reason in widening it based on the info in the permit documents.

 

[tumbler]

I would also be happy if GMVS expanded their lodge so the Mt Ellen lodge wasn't stuffed with racers and their bags strewn everywhere. They can walk over and get food but bring it back to the GMVS lodge.

 

[tumbler]

And not to mention the skis everywhere on the ground and not properly stowed in a rack :wink:

 

[cdskier]

I never understood why people leave skis on the ground instead of putting them in the racks. Maybe I could understand if the racks were actually completely full, but if that happened often then the ski resort should put out more racks. There have been times the racks are half empty though and skis are still on the ground, so clearly full racks aren't the main problem.

 

[180]

I don't see anything wrong with leaving skis on the ground. I have had more issues with my stuff getting moved, pushed over and generally not cared for while in a rack

 

[ThinkSnow]

I don't see anything wrong with leaving skis on the ground. I have had more issues with my stuff getting moved, pushed over and generally not cared for while in a rack

Do you have exceptionally short skis that don't make it to the top of the rack? Over many years of skiing and riding, I have never had my gear bothered while in a rack. I have seen instances of very short skis & poles falling through racks, however, and many instances of gear rudely piled up on top of others.

 

[Smellytele]

I don't see anything wrong with leaving skis on the ground. I have had more issues with my stuff getting moved, pushed over and generally not cared for while in a rack

Equipment on the ground that I have to walk around? I will make no real attempt to kick it or step on it but I will not make an attempt to walk around it and if I step on it or kick it I don't feel bad.