Why are there no snowboarder only mountains?

[Cannonball]

I would be curious to see what an ungroomed "snowboarder only" trail would look like. My guess would be really widely spaced, irregular bumps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sounds about right. I've also been noticing that modern ski shapes seem to be resulting in similar bump formation. People just aren't doing the same uniform, repetitive turns that they used to.

 

[Mapnut]

The answer is the same as why you have seen basically zero new ski areas developed in the last 20 years.

Try and get it pass the enviros and you'll know the reason.

I don't think this is really the case. Loon, Okemo, Bretton Woods, and Sunday River have gotten major expansions "past the enviros", and more have built on-mountain villages. But nobody wants to invest in a new resort because skiing/boarding is just not a growth industry.

I don't see any financial incentive to start a boards-only area. But maybe a "parks-only" area would serve the purpose. It wouldn't have to have a lot of vertical or as many runs as a ski area, and could be closer to population centers. However I don't expect it could compete with the well-developed parks at ski areas.

 

[Savemeasammy]

I don't see any financial incentive to start a boards-only area. But maybe a "parks-only" area would serve the purpose.

This I could see. A small mountain near a significant population center could probably be quite successful. Parks don't require huge vert or big natural snowfall totals. I would imagine that a mountain dedicated solely to parks and features would be a big draw for some. If such a mountain is ever created, I hope my 7 year old doesn't find out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MadMadWorld]

This I could see. A small mountain near a significant population center could probably be quite successful. Parks don't require huge vert or big natural snowfall totals. I would imagine that a mountain dedicated solely to parks and features would be a big draw for some. If such a mountain is ever created, I hope my 7 year old doesn't find out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's what Powder Ridge attempted (and failed) miserably at last year.

 

[4aprice]

This I could see. A small mountain near a significant population center could probably be quite successful. Parks don't require huge vert or big natural snowfall totals. I would imagine that a mountain dedicated solely to parks and features would be a big draw for some. If such a mountain is ever created, I hope my 7 year old doesn't find out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Big Boulder in PA. Vert about 450'. Not all boarders, but all park.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[Savemeasammy]

Big Boulder in PA. Vert about 450'. Not all boarders, but all park.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

Is that close to anything? Does it do well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dlague]

Big Boulder in PA. Vert about 450'. Not all boarders, but all park.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

I always thought that taking larger hills in metropolitan areas and making it a progression park concept would do well. Once you have a proven concept repeat often!

 

[Smellytele]

I always thought that taking larger hills in metropolitan areas and making it a progression park concept would do well. Once you have a proven concept repeat often!

Give a place for the gangstas ta hang.

 

[jaytrem]

Big Boulder in PA. Vert about 450'. Not all boarders, but all park.

Yeah, Big Boulder has the same thing going as a couple of the California places (Big Bear and Mt. High) and Mt Snow to a lesser extent. They all have near by mountains that the same ticket is good for if you want to ski non-park stuff (Mt Snow of course is actually connected). The one at Big Bear has a lot of nice non-park tree skiing and a few non-park runs on the upper parts of the mountain. But they pretty much advertise it as all park. See website...

http://www.bearmountain.com/

They have "The People's Park" much bigger than the actual name of the mountain. And also notice the link automatically defaults to...

http://www.bearmountain.com/snowboard/

 

[AdironRider]

I don't think this is really the case. Loon, Okemo, Bretton Woods, and Sunday River have gotten major expansions "past the enviros", and more have built on-mountain villages. But nobody wants to invest in a new resort because skiing/boarding is just not a growth industry.

I don't see any financial incentive to start a boards-only area. But maybe a "parks-only" area would serve the purpose. It wouldn't have to have a lot of vertical or as many runs as a ski area, and could be closer to population centers. However I don't expect it could compete with the well-developed parks at ski areas.

As mentioned earlier, no established ski area is going to say screw you to half their clientel. Therefor it'd have to be a new area built from the ground up.

Expanding an existing area is much different than starting from scratch. You know this.

 

[Domeskier]

I'm hoping for a ski blade only mountain. Mainly so people stop mocking me from the lifts.

 

[WWF-VT]

For a mountain to be all snowboard you'd need a new resort built with snowboarding in mind as the primary business driver instead of skiing. Every ski area in existence was built with, well, skiing in mind. First and foremost. Snowboarding was added later.

It would be like constructing a six lane highway and then deciding you only wanted bikes on it. Maybe that's not the best analogy but you get the idea. It's not really a preference thing, but the way places were built and what they were built around.

This makes no sense at all.

 

[Brad J]

I was in Snowbird in January, very few snowboards, almost none on steeper terrain, most of the good skiing requires a long traverse that cannot be fun on a snow board. Saw no difference in ungroomed terrain at either Alta (skier only) and Snowbird.

 

[gmcunni]

 

[jimk]

This I could see. A small mountain near a significant population center could probably be quite successful. Parks don't require huge vert or big natural snowfall totals. I would imagine that a mountain dedicated solely to parks and features would be a big draw for some. If such a mountain is ever created, I hope my 7 year old doesn't find out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a park only place like this near Denver called Echo Mtn, allowed both skiers and boarders. I think it operated from about 2006-2011? It went out of business. Not sure why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_Mountain_Park

Slight thread hijack: I'd be curious from the snowboarders in this thread...are there any mountains you've been to, East or West, that you would consider "boarder unfriendly" due to terrain or other reasons?
I ask because sometimes when I'm at a mountain requiring a lot of traversing or poling like Alta, Kirkwood, Killington I often wonder if this would be bad for boarders?? Not talking about climbing, but horizontal movement. Some of the best stuff at Kirkwood requires a lot of high traversing, but being in CA it gets a lot of boarders anyway. Plus, I guess there is always terrain at any mtn that sticks pretty much to the fall line so boarders can find easily accessible fun anywhere? Also, I guess one foot scooting on a board is no harder than poling for a skier??
Kirkwood, Jan 2013

 

[RENO]

I notice all the assumptions of what a snowboarder can't do are coming from skiers... :lol:
I don't want a snowboard only place. It's ridiculous just like the 3 skier only places that still exist.
Also, I could care less about MRG. If I'm driving to that area I'm hitting Sugarbush anyway whether I'm snowboarding or skiing! Much better experience!

 

[RENO]

I ask because sometimes when I'm at a mountain requiring a lot of traversing or poling like Alta, Kirkwood, Killington I often wonder if this would be bad for boarders??

I do most of my snowboarding at Killington and don't have a problem with any of the terrain. I don't even remember traversing much at all?

 

[dlague]

I do most of my snowboarding at Killington and don't have a problem with any of the terrain. I don't even remember traversing much at all?

The are a few traversing trails like Launch Pad but most always there is another chair lift that will help someone traverse so snowboarding down a trail to a chair is much easier and most are more likely to do.

 

[Cannonball]

Slight thread hijack: I'd be curious from the snowboarders in this thread...are there any mountains you've been to, East or West, that you would consider "boarder unfriendly" due to terrain or other reasons?
I ask because sometimes when I'm at a mountain requiring a lot of traversing or poling like Alta, Kirkwood, Killington I often wonder if this would be bad for boarders?? Not talking about climbing, but horizontal movement. Some of the best stuff at Kirkwood requires a lot of high traversing, but being in CA it gets a lot of boarders anyway. Plus, I guess there is always terrain at any mtn that sticks pretty much to the fall line so boarders can find easily accessible fun anywhere? Also, I guess one foot scooting on a board is no harder than poling for a skier??

Yes and no. The run-outs at the bottom of Burke's East Bowl kind of suck. But last time I was there it was the 2 skiers I was with that through in the towel before I did. Same for the run-outs from the far boundaries of Wildcat, Jay, etc. But whatever, it's not a big deal, it's well worth it. Some more spread out mountains like Sunday River, Killington, Whistler, etc are a drag if you aren't smart about planning your day and your runs. But don't all the smart skiers on this board do that also? Who wants to waste time traversing all day on any equipment. If you are smart, cognizant, informed you can make any layout work just fine.

Are there any mountains that skiers consider "skier unfriendly" because there are a lot of stairs in the base facilities? I know I hate walking stairs in my ski boots.

 

[dlague]

Yes and no. The run-outs at the bottom of Burke's East Bowl kind of suck. But last time I was there it was the 2 skiers I was with that through in the towel before I did. Same for the run-outs from the far boundaries of Wildcat, Jay, etc. But whatever, it's not a big deal, it's well worth it. Some more spread out mountains like Sunday River, Killington, Whistler, etc are a drag if you aren't smart about planning your day and your runs. But don't all the smart skiers on this board do that also? Who wants to waste time traversing all day on any equipment. If you are smart, cognizant, informed you can make any layout work just fine.

Are there any mountains that skiers consider "skier unfriendly" because there are a lot of stairs in the base facilities? I know I hate walking stairs in my ski boots.

Form the previous post:
Also, I guess one foot scooting on a board is no harder than poling for a skier?? Many times it is even easier since walking around with snowboard in hand is easier if you have too! BTW poling? I would rather skate than pole or use a combo but never pole only!

But don't all the smart skiers on this board do that also? Yes, use the chairs man!

Are there any mountains that skiers consider "skier unfriendly" because there are a lot of stairs in the base facilities? Going up the stairs no problem. Going down the stairs is not a deterrent. Going down stairs in a park equals fun!