To Park or Not?

[thetrailboss]

We've discussed this in the past, but BenedictGomez asked this question in the Jay Challenge thread:

I envision this scenario where the brass of several eastern mountains are sitting around their planning tables, and some of them want to dramatically reduce park, but they're all afraid too on the belief it might hurt them. Fear of the unknown.

So in 2014 are parks no longer needed? As he put it, have they "jumped the shark?" Or do they serve a purpose for smaller hills near the cities and metro areas that need something to keep skateboarders and urban jibbers happy?

Here is my cross-post about what I've seen out here:

I've noticed out here that parks are not that big of a deal.....folks say because the "whole mountain is a park." I think that a big reason is that resorts out here (generally) do not rely quite as much on snowmaking. Using eastern standards, Snowbird's "park" is pathetic. But as I ski by on Big Emma or ride on Gadzoom I rarely see anyone use it. Most of the 'bird's regular clientele come for the "natural" terrain offerings. Alta doesn't have a park (same reason). I heard from folks at Snowbird that it was cost and liability issues. If anything, I think they make a small one to throw a bone to the few out of towners who want some kind of park.

Brighton, on the other hand, has some decent parks and night skiing and riding. Their main crowd is into the park scene.

PCMR has killer parks but they do it because they get lots of out-of-towners who want it, they host big events, and they have a lot of athletes who need the parks for training.

As to cost, it is amazing. I recall when Burke dedicated a trail and some snowmaking money to a half-pipe. When Northern Star went out of business, I talked to someone in the know who was part of the new ownership about that half pipe and asked "why not do it?" He told me that it cost the resort $50-75k annually in snowmaking, etc. and netted few users and no revenue. That said, Burke has dedicated a lot of resources to a serious park and I think it has worked well at keeping a niche crowd that would have otherwise gone elsewhere. But is it making a lot of money? Probably not. That demographic does not really have a lot of disposable income. Mommy and Daddy sometimes do though...at least enough to get their kid a season pass.



My last season in Vermont, 2010-2011, Burke and Sugarbush had pretty serious parks. Sugarbush had a whole area dedicated to it and my observation was that it was pretty well used. Burke's parks are pretty good and cater to a pretty significant crowd.

I also have seen some big parks at Sunday River, Loon, and Killington. But I can't say if the latter two still do them.

 

[deadheadskier]

just say no to park. the fat pad in your heel will thank you later.

 

[jimk]

This is coming from old two planker so take with grain of salt...there seems to be primarily three kinds of park users: 1) pros who travel the country and go big in competitions, very small number of people, 2) kids and young adults who are bored with their regular ski area terrain and enjoy mastering tricks in the park or pipe, biggest percent of current park users but with the decline of snowboarding their numbers may be stagnant or shrinking, 3) tourists who take a pass through big parks while on ski vacation, sort of false users because they may not do park much back at home mtn??

In my demographic (geezers) there is an undercurrent of resentment about parks/pipes when we see precious snowmaking resources devoted to a facility we'll never use, while regular trails go uncovered or get neglected. There was a discussion somewhat related to this on Snowjournal about six months ago: http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic20068
For the most part I think ski area operators are smart enough to appropriately scale parks/pipes to their market, but I can think of one major ski area in my region that builds an enormous pipe and several elaborate parks at a bit of a cost to opening regular trails. This is a place where I've heard a lot of grumbling from non-park users.

 

[jarrodski]

obviously every ski area has its own blend of customers. Here in Connecticut, our parks noticeably are more busy than other trails in the early season, off hours and late season. These kids, and aging kids, are a staple. It is necessary to provide something that appeases them. The challenge is, how to create features that are interesting, while being usable to as many customers as possible, in a way that is inviting for every customer to, at the very least, be able to ski by and consider trying one someday.

What i have noticed is that as feature size has gone down, participation has increased. I have parents, grandparents, middle age warriors and weekend warriors all in our parks. why? cause they like it. The goal is, is to create parks that make sense to our customer.

rollers, banks, small table jumps with no gaps to clear... sure, there's rails and jumps. But as a park designer, i have to look to the larger picture. Who's taking time out of their life to come ski with us? Those are the people the parks are designed for.

It's incredibly important that parks stay. It allows smaller ski areas a chance to offer new experiences throughout the ski season. it also challenges lesser skilled athletes on terrain that truly, isn't that intimidating. Parks are a key component to creating life long skiers out of kids that may not have been drawn to the sport otherwise. we'll teach them how to shred glades later, right now, they're having the time of their lives doing sports, in the winter time... it really is great.

 

[jimk]

Good post Jarrodski.

 

[drjeff]

Coming from the perspective of see what the commitment to parks of all sizes, features and the progression that can and has occurred over the last 5+ years since Mount Snow fully committed to making Carinthia a premiere parl layout, not just in the East Coast, but in the entire country, I can see how parks can be a key part of a resorts business model and a significant draw of customers.

The thing is, to "do it right" it is a HUGE investment of time, money, marketing budget, terrain and equipment resources, as well as the commitment to recruit and train the staff in how to build, maintain and operate a park that can both attract new customers as well as keep the "regular" customers interested and engaged all season long.

Many of the resorts that have a "good" park reputation will continually throughout the season keep working on their park(s) with multiple full rebuilds and the changing up of the flow of the park. Resorts that tend not to have a "good" park reputation are far more likely to see the same features and flow sequence all season long and from season to season. Park skiing/riding is/can be a very progressive sport, and keeping a "passive" park design and setup doesn't keep the interest of the user for multiple visits per season.

As for the size of the parks, once again from the perspective of a Mount Snow regular who has kids who use the park and as such I am in them on a regular basis, mainly skiing along the sides watching my kids, but also hitting a feature or two every now and then, the "medium" sized parks and features by far and away get the most use from park users of all abilities. Does a big gap jump look impressive? Sure, but the reality is that those cost a bunch of $$ in snowmaking and then diesel for the cats to push all the snow in the build for what unless you've got a BIG park reputation will just be a few users, and even with a BIG park reputation large features still don't get a bunch of use (kind of like large/super pipes)

As for the overall importance to the sport, parks are for many younger skiers/boarders a BIG interest draw that can and does get them to the hill. Many of those people who were initially drawn to some extent by the park to the mountain will eventually over time evolve out of the park and in to other primary interest areas of the sport (back/side country, trees, bumps, etc) so in that essence too, they are an important factor to the industry, especially for smaller areas in more large population markets where evening programs are available. Having a GOOD park set up can be a major factor in boosting regular night skiing/boarding visits.

Does every resort need a park? Nope. But those that do, need to listen to what their customers are saying they want in a park, and then commit to their park builders the creative freedom and resources to keep the park "fresh" that will make it an asset that attracts what can be a sizeable niche market rather than just be a section of the mountain that has a bunch of snow on it, but not a bunch of people using it

 

[skiNEwhere]

Just like real estate, location, location, location!!!

When I lived in SoCal for 5 years I used to ski at Big Bear, which was really two mountains on one ticket, Snow Summit and Bear Mtn. I'm not joking when I say that over 80% of Bear Mtn was a terrain Park and about 40% of Snow Summit was a (smaller feature) terrain park.

But then you look at the nearby demographics. You got Los Angeles county with it's like 10 million people 2.5 hours away, and San Diego county with its 3 million people a little over 3 hours away. There was certainly enough people to justify its use, and when I was there in 2005 the snowboarders seemed to outnumber the skiers 3:2. So to use business terms, there was than enough demand to justify the supply.

Personally I don't really enjoy the terrain park. I'll hit the small kickers and stuff but I find much more enjoyment in skiing bumps and glades than trying to land a 360. Due to a consistent lack of natural snow though (SoCal gets very little precipitation) glades were lacking.

Big bear was an absolute zoo on the weekends, we're talking 25 minute waits minimum at the base, but they made a killing compared to the other, smaller resorts in the area (Mt.high, Mt. Baldy). But the demand is there, so I don't see a problem.

I remember shortly after I joined this site in 2006, there was some poster from Mass who complained about Jay's lack of a terrain park and they were lambasted by the other members of this forum. I remember specifically someone saying something along the lines of "if you were looking for a large terrain park, you took a wrong turn off of the interstate."

Jay is known for natural snow and glades. There would be plenty of other closer choices for that OP such as Carinthia at Mt. Snow. If a resort doesn't want a large terrain park, that is their call. People don't ski jay for its park, and I agree with Jay not making that their top priority seeing as they will not generate a large return on investment.

Edit: I have not skied Jay since 2009, and I don't know if they've added to their park since then. I also don't know off the top off my head if there is a closer resort to Montreal that serves people who just want to ski the park

 

[dlague]

Well! I will begin with the view from my son's perspective - Every time we head to a ski/snowboard area the first question out of him is, "Do they decent parks?". We require that the kids ski or ride with us but eventually send them on their own and they generally head to the parks. Now and then I will make a few runs with them and do a few smaller kickers and I find it fun. I will not launch my self off some of these huge jumps - I do need to be able to work. For the most part, some of the resorts have gotten carried away and created jumps so big that they are used by few. I think there is a feature size balance where the number of people drop off dramatically - Pats Peak does a good job at that. Stowe has a good progression model as well as Jay Peak, Gunstock, Sunapee to name a few. However if you look at their large feature (720) runs - they are often void of anyone or there are a half dozen skiers/boarders that can actually do it.

I think that no parks will drive families with kids (who like park) to other places so some form of park is good - I think too big is not worth it IMO! Our older kids after age 14 or so opted to ski steeps and glades and our park rat (the youngest) love it there too so for him - no park is not a big deal.

On a final note - our kids got 2 concussions, 2 broken collar bones and a fractured thumb in the parks - skiing steeps and glades nothing and they have better stories to tell.

 

[steamboat1]

I think parks are good. Keeps all the reckless skiers/boarders confined to one area.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Cannon is a good example of a useless park.Its mostly made up of big hits which frankly,I've never seen anybody clear.They all land topside short.Ouch!And secondly,there is never anybody in it and it takes up way too wide an area on Lower Cannon that forces traffic to funnel to a narrow fenced area.

 

[bobbutts]

Parks have been around long enough that I'd suspect the number crunchers at various resorts have a pretty good idea of their impact in those harder to measure areas.
I don't think the activity at Burke really can be used as any indicator, nice place, but out of the way and a history of operational issues. Same goes for Alta/Bird, the location with legendary powder snow and steep terrain.
TB talks about "mommy and daddy" because he can't help being a jerk and is attempting to minimize the impact of younger skiers and riders, but where the kids want to go is the driver of a huge amount of money in the family entertainment business. Not just a few pass sales and some mt dews, but high ticket vacations that are the lifeblood of many resorts.

 

[dlague]

I think parks are good. Keeps all the reckless skiers/boarders confined to one area.

Good one!

 

[dlague]

Cannon is a good example of a useless park.Its mostly made up of big hits which frankly,I've never seen anybody clear.They all land topside short.Ouch!And secondly,there is never anybody in it and it takes up way too wide an area on Lower Cannon that forces traffic to funnel to a narrow fenced area.

Agreed!

 

[Smellytele]

I park because I don't want to get my truck stuck on the mountain

 

[dlague]

I park because I don't want to get my truck stuck on the mountain

One in every crowd! BTW - is it me or does it seem like activity is picking up in AZ? I like it!

 

[WWF-VT]

Does every resort need a park? Nope. But those that do, need to listen to what their customers are saying they want in a park, and then commit to their park builders the creative freedom and resources to keep the park "fresh" that will make it an asset that attracts what can be a sizeable niche market rather than just be a section of the mountain that has a bunch of snow on it, but not a bunch of people using it

+1

 

[BenedictGomez]

Does every resort need a park? Nope.

This was a big part of the genesis of my original question, because I agree; and that's not the landscape today. Just about everyone has a park, even if they're virtually completely unused.

An example I'll use is Shawnee mountain in the Poconos - has HUGE features that use up TONS of snowmaking, which IMO is reckless ski area management resource planning given how snow-starved the area is. Worse? The 5 or 6 times I've been there the last few years it's very lightly trafficked, and the average user has been about 10 years old and just going "weeeeeee!" over the bumps (i.e. not really using park for park).

I dont view my Shawnee example as an isolated area. I dont have a season pass on purpose, because I like to ski a bunch or areas per season (usually 8 to 10). In my opinion, from my northeast ski travels, the park being lightly used is generally the rule rather than the exception.

On a final note - our kids got 2 concussions, 2 broken collar bones and a fractured thumb in the parks - skiing steeps and glades nothing and they have better stories to tell.

Which eventually works its' way into lift ticket prices via insurance rates, whether you're 16 or 76.

Cannon is a good example of a useless park.Its mostly made up of big hits which frankly,I've never seen anybody clear.They all land topside short.Ouch!And secondly,there is never anybody in it and it takes up way too wide an area on Lower Cannon that forces traffic to funnel to a narrow fenced area.

I've never been to Cannon, but this is precisely the sort of inefficient silliness I'm talking about.

 

[thetrailboss]

TB talks about "mommy and daddy" because he can't help being a jerk and is attempting to minimize the impact of younger skiers and riders, but where the kids want to go is the driver of a huge amount of money in the family entertainment business.

No, that was not my point.

 

[AdironRider]

I think it depends on the mtn.

The park scene is radically different between Loon and Cannon. Loon and Waterville have some of the best parks in the country, Cannon 15 minutes down the road has a couple wedge shaped snow piles.

Out West, I'd say places like Brighton need them but places like Snowbird dont. Different clientel and expectations.

Parks always have their fans, but its pretty resort dependent.

 

[ss20]

Of course I park. What else would I do with my car? ;-)

Anyway, parks work for some while others don't. Jimminy Peak and Catamount used to have half pipes. Not anymore. Too much snow and not enough clientele. But if you go to Mount Snow... the line for the Carinthia HSQ is as long if not longer than the Bluebird on any given Saturday.