The "Sugarbush Thread"

[Kingslug20]

The year of...maintenance issues...
But my life was 26 years of maintenance issues...
Coupled with supply chain issues now..

 

[1dog]

Maybe we have different definitions of "hotels" then but are actually saying the same thing. The Sugar Lodge is 22 rooms. That's the type of thing I'm fine with. I don't consider it a "hotel" though.

Cogent discussion on lodging on more than 2 sides. I even dislike the solar powered speed LED signs in valley- it was, until they were placed, a 30 mile stretch of 1950's Vermont. Not a single ( even blinking) yellow light, no franchises for F&B or hotels, and mostly closely held businesses.

Economic, as NYDB states, don't work. Regulation makes it even more difficult, because if you do have the capital, to make it work, charges will be relative to costs to operate.
Even with relatively newly-discovered summer activities ( for years- come up on the 4th of July or any perfect-weather summer weekend and it was empty as for as traffic goes), restaurants have a tough time with help, somewhat even seasonal traffic, and cost of overhead. Heck Hyde-A-Way does a bang up business but for help reasons couldn't keep the corner establishment open?

Keep thinking a good, hard, deep recession that nobody wants, is what is needed for an economic 'reset'.

Meanwhile, American credit debt now exceeds 2019. . . . . after paying a lot of it off with the 'free money'.

 

[HowieT2]

I said I prefer "lodges, etc" in my original post. So yea....lodges/inns are fine with me. I guess that's the terms I equate with "smaller, independent accommodations with hotel-like rooms".

imho, there needs to be more modern hotel capacity at the base. Hopefully, done right. claybrook has limited capacity and too expensive. other than that there hasnt been anything built in ages and the likes of the sugarbush inn, sugar lodge are past their prime and the former isnt even operating.

 

[HowieT2]

Cogent discussion on lodging on more than 2 sides. I even dislike the solar powered speed LED signs in valley- it was, until they were placed, a 30 mile stretch of 1950's Vermont. Not a single ( even blinking) yellow light, no franchises for F&B or hotels, and mostly closely held businesses.

Economic, as NYDB states, don't work. Regulation makes it even more difficult, because if you do have the capital, to make it work, charges will be relative to costs to operate.
Even with relatively newly-discovered summer activities ( for years- come up on the 4th of July or any perfect-weather summer weekend and it was empty as for as traffic goes), restaurants have a tough time with help, somewhat even seasonal traffic, and cost of overhead. Heck Hyde-A-Way does a bang up business but for help reasons couldn't keep the corner establishment open?

Keep thinking a good, hard, deep recession that nobody wants, is what is needed for an economic 'reset'.

Meanwhile, American credit debt now exceeds 2019. . . . . after paying a lot of it off with the 'free money'.

I don't think preserving the valley in amber is a good plan for the future of the resort or the community. That doesnt mean growth has to be done without taste and deference to the existing culture. But facilities age and need to be refreshed or replaced or else visitors will stop coming and spending their money in the community (see the end of the asc era before win and company built the base area). Warren lodge and mad river barn are great examples of refreshing old structures, but they are small and insufficient to support the growth the community needs.

labor shortages are a separate discussion. Pretty confident that if you ask local business owners, they'd like to see more customers, not less.

 

[cdskier]

imho, there needs to be more modern hotel capacity at the base. Hopefully, done right. claybrook has limited capacity and too expensive. other than that there hasnt been anything built in ages and the likes of the sugarbush inn, sugar lodge are past their prime and the former isnt even operating.

Sugarbush Inn would be back in the lodging pool once the new employee housing is built. So that will help. It could use a bit of modernization though, although there are also a lot of people looking for cheaper bare-bones places (I know some people that loved SB Inn as is).

I'm struggling to see a way for a "modern hotel" to exist at the base operating as independent. The demand just doesn't exist in the non-winter months at the base. (I'm not even sure there'd be enough demand for that type of facility in the valley off-season). So to operate a hotel for less than half a year is going to be a challenge to sustain. As someone else said, a hotel of that type would only be able to survive if they charged premium prices. Which isn't what you're looking for if you're already saying Claybrook is too expensive. Only way I could see it working is if it was owned/built by SB themselves. And wasn't that a plan at one point to build something like that?

 

[oldfartrider]

I used to stay at the White Horse Inn that was reasonably priced. They sold at the end of last season, the new owners r charging around $50 more per night and eliminated breakfast. No thanks

 

[cdskier]

I used to stay at the White Horse Inn that was reasonably priced. They sold at the end of last season, the new owners r charging around $50 more per night and eliminated breakfast. No thanks

New owners of White Horse Inn are the same owners as Warren Lodge and Mad River Lodge (former Garrison). The owners are from NJ and used to be (or maybe even still are if they haven't moved to VT full time) neighbors with one of my co-workers.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

i stayed in the mad river lodge last year. it was inexpensive, low frills, def no breakfast etc, but new and clean and comfortable. would return.

 

[tumbler]

Sugarbush Inn would be back in the lodging pool once the new employee housing is built. So that will help. It could use a bit of modernization though, although there are also a lot of people looking for cheaper bare-bones places (I know some people that loved SB Inn as is).

I'm struggling to see a way for a "modern hotel" to exist at the base operating as independent. The demand just doesn't exist in the non-winter months at the base. (I'm not even sure there'd be enough demand for that type of facility in the valley off-season). So to operate a hotel for less than half a year is going to be a challenge to sustain. As someone else said, a hotel of that type would only be able to survive if they charged premium prices. Which isn't what you're looking for if you're already saying Claybrook is too expensive. Only way I could see it working is if it was owned/built by SB themselves. And wasn't that a plan at one point to build something like that?

There is demand in the summer for rooms. If you look at the tourist numbers more people visit Vermont in the summer than in the winter, specially July and August. Weddings are very popular. The original plan for the base area during ASC was a Grand Summit Hotel at the bottom of EZ Rider. Win's group modified the permit for a different location and unit type. People like have a home to stay in as opposed to a hotel. Clay Brook is full most weekends.
Howie's post is spot on about not limiting development. The Valley needs to evolve and grow to stay viable.

 

[HowieT2]

Sugarbush Inn would be back in the lodging pool once the new employee housing is built. So that will help. It could use a bit of modernization though, although there are also a lot of people looking for cheaper bare-bones places (I know some people that loved SB Inn as is).

I'm struggling to see a way for a "modern hotel" to exist at the base operating as independent. The demand just doesn't exist in the non-winter months at the base. (I'm not even sure there'd be enough demand for that type of facility in the valley off-season). So to operate a hotel for less than half a year is going to be a challenge to sustain. As someone else said, a hotel of that type would only be able to survive if they charged premium prices. Which isn't what you're looking for if you're already saying Claybrook is too expensive. Only way I could see it working is if it was owned/built by SB themselves. And wasn't that a plan at one point to build something like that?

I kind of assumed that the sugarbush inn would not be returning to service anytime in the near future and without extensive/costly rehabilitation. I think there's more than sufficient demand for that, and that it would be more economical to build a new structure at the base which would have the ancillary benefits of guests being in walking distance to bars/restaurants and not adding to the traffic on the access road. In my mind, building a new hotel/inn with modern accomodations and efficient infrastructure systems wouldn't end up being more than doing what needs to be done to the sugarbush inn (which btw, i'm a fan of) . Maybe I'm wrong about that, but having just spent way too much on updating the kitchen in my house including a heat pump to replace the old oil heat, I can imagine the cost of bringing the sugarbush inn up to 21st century standards is substantial.

 

[Brownstar]

That location as is looks terrible and has been an eyesore for years. New construction and landscaping there will be a substantial improvement over how it looks today.



Not at all, but they also should not be able to unilaterally stop progress around them.



What does weekend traffic have to do with a driveway? Also I can't remember the last time I've seen traffic backed up to Golf Course road (and I drive from LP to ME almost every Saturday).

Never said anything about stopping progress around them, but perhaps it could be reconfigured so as not to encircle the existing homeowner with asphalt and buildings 3 times the size of the existing lived-in property. Traffic backs up on the access road all the time- just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it does not happen.

 

[Brownstar]

I just re-read this. Why exactly would people be driving through that new driveway during peak traffic times anyway? What advantage would there be to turning from the Access Road into a driveway that is maybe 100' or so before Golf Course road to get to the mountain? Are there really that many people using Golf Course road to West Hill Rd to Inferno Rd to bypass Access Road traffic on the handful of days a year that it even potentially backs up that far?

As others have said...there has to be more to you being against this than you're letting on.

Believe it or not, not everyone is going to LP. When there are cars backed up on Golf Course road waiting for the LP traffic to let them in, there's always others who need to turn right onto the Access Road. An open driveway is fair game for that right turn, and totally unnecessary is all I am saying. Its like driving through the local CVS when you can't make a right on red. Not supposed to do it, but everyone does.

 

[cdskier]

There is demand in the summer for rooms. If you look at the tourist numbers more people visit Vermont in the summer than in the winter, specially July and August. Weddings are very popular. The original plan for the base area during ASC was a Grand Summit Hotel at the bottom of EZ Rider. Win's group modified the permit for a different location and unit type. People like have a home to stay in as opposed to a hotel. Clay Brook is full most weekends.
Howie's post is spot on about not limiting development. The Valley needs to evolve and grow to stay viable.

Yes, there are more tourists in VT in general in the summer...but for the most part outside of events at the mountain (like weddings), most people don't want to stay on the mountain. The summer activities are more valley focused (farmer's market, swimming holes, etc). The mountain itself doesn't have much going on unless there's an event. I'd imagine most of the times Clay Brook is full...it is from events/weddings. Is there enough surplus demand beyond that for lodging on mountain during the summer? I'd think if SB themselves saw demand, they'd have places like the SB Inn open as an option during the summer. But I can't recall that being open non-winter recently.

Believe it or not, not everyone is going to LP. When there are cars backed up on Golf Course road waiting for the LP traffic to let them in, there's always others who need to turn right onto the Access Road. An open driveway is fair game for that right turn, and totally unnecessary is all I am saying. Its like driving through the local CVS when you can't make a right on red. Not supposed to do it, but everyone does.

So you're saying that cars will turn right into the driveway from Golf Course road so they can then make a right on Access Rd? One problem with that...the driveway will be one way (entrance on Access Rd and exit on Golf Course rd) per the plans approved by the DRB.

 

[Brownstar]

so you have no issue with the traffic from a 200 unit building but 3 4 bedroom units which are presumably for 3 families is going to cause terrible traffic?
There must be something you're not telling us.

The large building is proposed on a currently unused piece of property- fine. The corner lot redevelopment is taking place where there is (A) an existing homeowner, and the new plan could cause (B) unnecessary and (C) unsafe traffic issues by allowing cars to cut off the busy corner intersection by accessing the newly paved driveway around the existing homeowner. Not to mention (D) the 3 new larger-than-the-original-houses are being proposed on a piece of property that is (E) approximately 1/3 of an acre. If the new structures were more in keeping with the original layout & sizing, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Brownstar]

It's OK if you are. Just seems to me that would be the only one who would have a stake in the situation. It has been way too long since I've been to SB, but if memory serves me right this location is on the Access Road and is in a developed area as it is. The homeowner could always buy the adjoining land from SB if they feel this strongly, but otherwise, the town has approved it and I am not seeing anything blatantly illegal or wrong here.

Why would the existing homeowner purchase the properties around them "just in case" and how would someone afford that? Unless you're suggesting everyone is independently wealthy and can and should purchase their neighbors properties as soon as possible.

 

[Brownstar]

Yes, there are more tourists in VT in general in the summer...but for the most part outside of events at the mountain (like weddings), most people don't want to stay on the mountain. The summer activities are more valley focused (farmer's market, swimming holes, etc). The mountain itself doesn't have much going on unless there's an event. I'd imagine most of the times Clay Brook is full...it is from events/weddings. Is there enough surplus demand beyond that for lodging on mountain during the summer? I'd think if SB themselves saw demand, they'd have places like the SB Inn open as an option during the summer. But I can't recall that being open non-winter recently.



So you're saying that cars will turn right into the driveway from Golf Course road so they can then make a right on Access Rd? One problem with that...the driveway will be one way (entrance on Access Rd and exit on Golf Course rd) per the plans approved by the DRB.

Does the plan also include tire spikes to prevent wrong way egress? Yes, one way signage will definitely prevent that.

 

[thetrailboss]

Why would the existing homeowner purchase the properties around them "just in case" and how would someone afford that? Unless you're suggesting everyone is independently wealthy and can and should purchase their neighbors properties as soon as possible.

As I said, you seem to have more than a normal level of interest in this issue. It's OK if you are the subject homeowner or related. And what I said about one solution being to buy an adjoining lot to prevent development is not at all ridiculous. It happens a lot. As someone said here, apparently Alterra/Sugarbush made the homeowner an offer and it was refused. So Alterra/Sugarbush tried that solution.

And I make no judgment as to someone's wealth. Other than to say that if someone owns property on the Sugarbush Access Road in this location that they probably have means (unless they inherited this property). That is a realistic expectation.

 

[STREETSKIER]

Fantastic day chasing the sun
Best true corn in a while

 

[cdskier]

Does the plan also include tire spikes to prevent wrong way egress? Yes, one way signage will definitely prevent that.

You're really grasping at straws here...

 

[Brownstar]

As I said, you seem to have more than a normal level of interest in this issue. It's OK if you are the subject homeowner or related. And what I said is not at all ridiculous. It happens a lot. As someone said here, apparently Alterra/Sugarbush made the homeowner an offer and it was refused. So Alterra/Sugarbush tried that solution.

And I make no judgment as to someone's wealth. Other than to say that if someone owns property on the Sugarbush Access Road in this location that they probably have means (unless they inherited this property). That is a realistic expectation.

Again, not the homeowner, nor related, and the suggestion that the existing homeowner refused an offer is only hearsay mentioned on site. My only point- and yes being passionate about it- was an attempt to generate some intelligent conversation about the situation. But now I can see exactly where I went wrong.