The "Sugarbush Thread"

[Slidebrook87]

Count me as another person that is quite happy that much of Otten's plans never happened. His "vision" was to turn it into a mega resort so he could make a lot of money. He didn't care about respecting the community. He didn't care about the things that made SB unique and special (like CR being an all natural area with limited capacity). So I'm ultimately quite happy ASC failed.

I also don't understand why we're crediting Otten with the "vision" for connecting North and South in the first place. That was part of the plan over 10 years before Otten bought SB. He may have been the one that finally managed to do it with the installation of the SB chair, which as Hawk pointed out was ultimately a blessing since it prevented any further development in that area.

When somebody owns a ski resort, they naturally have a vision for it. Otten's vision was to center everything around Slide Brook. This explains the reconfiguration of Mount Ellen and the reason why the Gate House area was completely redeveloped. I can definitely see why you are happier with current ownership but here's a quick explanation of why I liked ASC's ownership better:

It was predictable. Some hate it and some love it, but I would rather ski at a mountain where I know that reliable mountain operations are guaranteed. He treated Sugarbush as one large mountain instead of two separate mountains similar to how it is now by configuring everything around Slide Brook. The idea was that a day-tripper would get to experience what both mountains had to offer by just a short 10-minute lift ride. Nowadays, most people park at Lincoln and only ski there while Ellen is left in the dust. When Slide Brook does run, Ellen almost seems like a "reliever" mountain. Since Sugarbush is such an amazing and more importantly, large mountain, it made sense to have it be a bit more commercial than a smaller mountain. To be clear there are certain things I prefer about the current ownership such as the attention to detail with new facilities, the unique events happening around the mountain, and the connection to local MRV culture, but I do think some aspects of the mountain have suffered under this new vision. Again, this is just my opinion. Feel free to have yours.

 

[Orca]

I'll make the following assertion: Sugarbush is not absolutely and immaculately perfect in its current state. The logical consequence of that assertion is that there exist things that could be done to improve it. However, it is my observation that approximately 80% of posters on this forum poo poo any and all suggestions for any type of change or improvement. It is bizarre.

 

[deadheadskier]

It's not just Sugarbush. I'm generally against "improvements" at all ski areas outside of upgrading lifts or cutting glades. 90% of new trails cut in the Northeast in the past 30 years have been a massive disappointment. Too wide, too void of character and always with snowmaking. Why not cut a new Rumble or Goat type trail? That's what I'd like to see more of. A return to old school, classic New England trail design.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Slidebrook87]

It's not just Sugarbush. I'm generally against "improvements" at all ski areas outside of upgrading lifts or cutting glades. 90% of new trails cut in the Northeast in the past 30 years have been a massive disappointment. Too wide, too void of character and always with snowmaking. Why not cut a new Rumble or Goat type trail? That's what I'd like to see more of. A return to old school, classic New England trail design.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

While hardcore skiers might consider the new trails "boring", it's just the reality. Unless there is a dedicated sidecountry expansion, a ski resort is not going to just throw in some extreme terrain that only 5% of their visitors actually ski. They would rather cut something that appeals to a more broad audience. On the positive side of things though, there has been an increase in new sidecountry areas at resorts throughout the country. Take Bretton Woods as an example: In 2012 they cut some nice glades and put in a simple T-Bar to create a new expansion. Something like this only runs a resort about $1,000,000 and is pretty easy to justify. Trails like Rumble and Goat, however, were cut years ago when the technology used today just didn't exist. These days it is just not worth it to do a trail expansion like that. Also, don't be against improvements as at least they are something new for the mountain. Some places go years without any improvements kind of like Stowe in recent years...

 

[ducky]

Another day much better than expected. Bit wet early but soft and nice turning. Looks like some light snow coming Monday.

 

[cdskier]

It's not just Sugarbush. I'm generally against "improvements" at all ski areas outside of upgrading lifts or cutting glades. 90% of new trails cut in the Northeast in the past 30 years have been a massive disappointment. Too wide, too void of character and always with snowmaking. Why not cut a new Rumble or Goat type trail? That's what I'd like to see more of. A return to old school, classic New England trail design.

I like the way you think! I'm ok with expansion in the right place if it is done "right" with classic old school New England style trails. I agree that there's no reason for new wide boring groomer runs. We have enough of those... Even if you want to add mellower terrain, it can still be done without resorting to wide trails. To me, Walt's at ME is a great example of a green trail with a lot of character. Or pretty much most of the greens and blues at MRG would be great examples of lower level trails that are fun and have a lot of character as well.

 

[cdskier]

While hardcore skiers might consider the new trails "boring", it's just the reality. Unless there is a dedicated sidecountry expansion, a ski resort is not going to just throw in some extreme terrain that only 5% of their visitors actually ski. They would rather cut something that appeals to a more broad audience.

I don't think you understand the Sugarbush clientele if you think only 5% of their visitors would ski new more challenging "classic" terrain.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'll take the Stowe I moved to in 1995 over what exists there today any day of the week. Wish I was around for Liftline and National during their heyday before they got neutered.

You want McSkiing? Go to Okemo or Stratton. Leave the places like Sugarbush and Smuggs that retain a certain amount of old school character alone. Thanks

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Slidebrook87]

I don't think you understand the Sugarbush clientele if you think only 5% of their visitors would ski new more challenging "classic" terrain.

I said “a ski resort” referring to your average ski resort. Even Sugarbush, if you look at the skier data, only about 5% ski Rumble on an average day. Maybe even less...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deadheadskier]

I said “a ski resort” referring to your average ski resort. Even Sugarbush, if you look at the skier data, only about 5% ski Rumble on an average day. Maybe even less...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What "data" is being collected on people skiing Rumble. They got a secret RFID gate at the top of it?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Slidebrook87]

What "data" is being collected on people skiing Rumble. They got a secret RFID gate at the top of it?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

If there was data, it would back up the information I said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mbedle]

Look at a couple of resort master plans and most state that the expert skier market in North America is around 5%.

 

[deadheadskier]

Look at a couple of resort master plans and most state that the expert skier market in North America is around 5%.

That distribution varies widely depending on type of terrain available. A place like Sugarbush might have 20% of their market be expert skiers vs a place like Okemo having 2%.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Slidebrook87]

That distribution varies widely depending on type of terrain available. A place like Sugarbush might have 20% of their market be expert skiers vs a place like Okemo having 2%.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Fair enough, but as the climate warms, it’s increasingly harder to justify cutting a natural snow trail that won’t always be open. It just doesn’t appeal to the average customer either. Look at Sugarbush, many of the people are just families lapping Gate House all day long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ducky]

That distribution varies widely depending on type of terrain available. A place like Sugarbush might have 20% of their market be expert skiers vs a place like Okemo having 2%.

And much higher midweek.

 

[deadheadskier]

Fair enough, but as the climate warms, it’s increasingly harder to justify cutting a natural snow trail that won’t always be open. It just doesn’t appeal to the average customer either. Look at Sugarbush, many of the people are just families lapping Gate House all day long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see a point being reached where a trail like Rumble doesn't open at least 30 days a season. If it does get to that point, the people who want to ski that type of terrain aren't going to say, "screw it. widen it and put in snowmaking and grooming on it."

Just look at Tramline at Cannon. It probably opens less than 30 days a season on average. I don't think you'll find many people suggesting they should line it with dynamite, flatten it and put in snowmaking. They've already got Profile or Avalanche to ski that type of experience. You simply just have to be patient and opportunistic to experience it for what it is.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Slidebrook87]

I never said that those trails would change, but it would not be economically viable to cut new ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkiingInABlueDream]

I'm envisioning lifts, trail pods and connector trails added into the spaces between LP, ME and MRG and it sort of, abstractly, reminds me of another place LBO once owned...

 

[deadheadskier]

But it would be to replace Inverness with a HSQ and move that chair onto a new terrain pod above it? That's like a $15M project.

You could literaly put another trail like Rumble between it and Middle Earth for probably a couple hundred grand. That's something different and unique that other areas aren't doing and most certainly would generate some buzz.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Hawk]

I will say this. Yes he is right in a general scene. There are more beginner-intermediate skiers at Sugarbush then there are experts. These people may want to see more trails and marked areas than there are now. Problem is the areas that they put the new trails will most likely be were we already ski. I don't care If I am a minority, I don't want to see good areas get wiped out because we have to cater to people. Call me selfish.