227 replies to this topic

[DonaldMReif]

Or they should build another lift that goes directly from the bottom of Tombstone back to Red Pine Lodge. Or some sort of two-way lift that goes directly between the bottom of Tombstone and the Gondola/Orange Bubble base.

[Tin Woodsman]

TheEpicPancake, on 09 October 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

I would say Day Break is much lower on the list of priorities at the Canyons, although I agree, I think it should be extended and upgraded. Peak 5 desperately needs to be upgraded, along with Dreamcatcher and Dreamscape. And yes, the fact that the only way to return to Red Pine is via Tombstone is just poor planning from the start. What happens if there's an issue with Tombstone? Everyone skiing south of Tombstone ends up stuck and not able to return to base. So there needs to be another way to get back to Red Pine. Perhaps a lift from the base of Dreamcatcher up to the top of Tombstone? The problem with that whole area is there's houses everywhere; the alignment would be incredibly tricky at the very least, if possible at all.

This. 1,000 times this. ASC/Talisker's fatal flaw, IMHO, was in trying to fill every last square inch of land with houses, irrespective of whether those were up at 9,000 feet in intermediate terrain. As a result, they have permanently sacrificed the skiing experience for a one-time real estate bonanza. Smart planning. the options to resolve this issue, amongst others, are much narrower as a result.

DonaldMReif, on 10 October 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Or they should build another lift that goes directly from the bottom of Tombstone back to Red Pine Lodge. Or some sort of two-way lift that goes directly between the bottom of Tombstone and the Gondola/Orange Bubble base.

While that would ease crowding on Tombstone and solve the redundancy issue, you'd still have to glide all the way down to the bottom of tombstone anytime you want to get back towards the base from the south half of the resort. Ideally you'd have a lift starting form somewhere below Dreamscape up to near the high point on Fantasy Ridge b/w top of Tombstone and 9990. Also would make sense to re-align Daybreak to offload at/near the ridgeline beyond Peak 5 to the north, as it would not only make that lift relevant from a terrain perspective, it would also facilitate better upper mtn flow from south to north.

[liftmech]

Tin Woodsman, on 10 October 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

As a result, they have permanently sacrificed the skiing experience for a one-time real estate bonanza. Smart planning. the options to resolve this issue, amongst others, are much narrower as a result.

You've just described several other places I've had experience with. Never let real estate dictate what happens on the hill. Although it's far too late in most places....

[RibStaThiok]

Tin Woodsman, on 10 October 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

This. 1,000 times this. ASC/Talisker's fatal flaw, IMHO, was in trying to fill every last square inch of land with houses, irrespective of whether those were up at 9,000 feet in intermediate terrain. As a result, they have permanently sacrificed the skiing experience for a one-time real estate bonanza. Smart planning. the options to resolve this issue, amongst others, are much narrower as a result.
While that would ease crowding on Tombstone and solve the redundancy issue, you'd still have to glide all the way down to the bottom of tombstone anytime you

This is pretty typical of Utah. Crowd as many houses in as you can, squeeze every little bit of potential real estate revenue out that you can... Then you are left with a crowded congested community. Don't believe me? Look at the wasatch front (Roughly from Provo down to Ogden and then some) They are even building houses out in areas where the Great Salt Lake was strong and healthy only 20 or so years ago. I guess they think that we'll never see lake levels that high again and if we do, there are 4 big pumps up in the northwestern part of the GSL (now desert) that can pump all that excess water out into the desert. huh.

[Tin Woodsman]

RibStaThiok, on 12 October 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

This is pretty typical of Utah. Crowd as many houses in as you can, squeeze every little bit of potential real estate revenue out that you can... Then you are left with a crowded congested community. Don't believe me? Look at the wasatch front (Roughly from Provo down to Ogden and then some) They are even building houses out in areas where the Great Salt Lake was strong and healthy only 20 or so years ago. I guess they think that we'll never see lake levels that high again and if we do, there are 4 big pumps up in the northwestern part of the GSL (now desert) that can pump all that excess water out into the desert. huh.

While this is unfortunate and short-sighted, at least those developers have the excuse that their only mission is to sell homes. For ASC/Talisker, there is no such fall back. Their primary attraction is the ski resort. Otherwise, the real-estate has no raison d'etre. So if you screw up the ski resort in order to shoehorn in more homes, you are almost literally cutting off your nose to spite your face. Sure, every ski area tries to wedge more real-estate in at the base etc.., and you often see new terrain expansions which are nothing more than a thin pretext for adjacent development. But I don't think I've ever seen another mtn develop their real-estate so brazenly up on the mountain and with such little regard for the skiing experience that exists or that which is to come.

[Backbowlsbilly]

I was incredibly surprised by how far up the mountain the real estate goes, there is some right up by Ninety Nine 90. However, although I agree they built too much, you wouldn't want to ski a whole lot of that area anyways and its pretty low density (large houses, not condos). They did leave Iron Mountain, all of the steeps on Ninety Nine 90, and Super Condor open without development and I think that some people actually do like skiing through the houses and real estate, even though most of us probably hate it. Bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead at Beaver Creek are just good groomer areas with plenty of houses mixed in and both are a drawing point for many people at Beaver Creek. I can almost gurantee that Vail will increase grooming in that area, it will start to feel more and more like Bachelor Gulch and Vail will find a way to turn a development blunder into a better area for skiing. They do need to fix the lift layout, something needs to go from Tombstone and Iron Mountain to the base area, it won't be able to handle the additional crowds that will come over on the connect with Park City.

[RibStaThiok]

And this is exactly why I tend to only go to the resorts without all that real estate nonsense. As sad as it is, because some of those resorts that are doing this housing crap next to ski runs used to be quite awesome to ski at.

[DonaldMReif]

I haven't been to Beaver Creek in years, but your point about how the Bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead areas work pretty well with the real estate and everything. For a couple million dollars, VR can try to find some way to build/upgrade lifts to make the PCMR/Canyons interconnect work. You'd definitely want to upgrade both Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher. And of course, find a way to get people over to Red Pine Lodge that takes the future crowds off of Tombstone and makes Peak 5 useful.

Daybreak definitely gets extended, possibly upgraded, or removed completely. And unrelated to the interconnect, but I think the resort should extend High Meadow to the top of the Sun Peak lift to provide easier access to Super Condor (as opposed to riding Saddleback and skiing down Kokopelli to Echo; or taking Short Cut and skiing Broken Arrow).

And somehow regrade the cattrack from the bottom of Super Condor so that people don't need to use the platter/rope tow to get back to Orange Bubble.

This post has been edited by DonaldMReif: 15 October 2014 - 08:21 AM

[TheEpicPancake]

Backbowlsbilly, on 13 October 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

I was incredibly surprised by how far up the mountain the real estate goes, there is some right up by Ninety Nine 90. However, although I agree they built too much, you wouldn't want to ski a whole lot of that area anyways and its pretty low density (large houses, not condos). They did leave Iron Mountain, all of the steeps on Ninety Nine 90, and Super Condor open without development and I think that some people actually do like skiing through the houses and real estate, even though most of us probably hate it.

I think there are people that enjoy skiing by all the fancy houses, and I don't have a problem with them building houses next to ski runs, but when they do it to the extent they've done at Canyons, where they're spread out through that whole area and thus have potentially ruined any chance of future lifts in the area, then it becomes a problem.

I do like the idea someone posted above for a 2 way lift from the base of Tombstone to the main base area. But once again, would it be possible with the houses and condos in the area?

[TheEpicPancake]

Another instance where houses are a problem is at Deer Valley. They're trying to put in the Main Street gondola and it's been incredibly difficult to find an alignment given all the houses throughout Silver Lake.

[DonaldMReif]

I wonder if Vail Resorts is already installing EpicMix readers at the PCMR lifts.

[Tin Woodsman]

DonaldMReif, on 14 October 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

I haven't been to Beaver Creek in years, but your point about how the Bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead areas work pretty well with the real estate and everything. For a couple million dollars, VR can try to find some way to build/upgrade lifts to make the PCMR/Canyons interconnect work.

I think the main difference between Canyons and BC is that the over-zealous housing developments at the latter are on the margins of the resort. Arrowhead and Bachelor Gulch pods are simply low-traffic, easy groomers woven throughout various upscale residential developments. The VAST majority of skier traffic remains in the core of the resort from the main base area and over to Strawberry Park. As such, Arrowhead and BG are just extravagant annoyances but with little impact on the skiing experience. At Canyons, that housing is smack dab in the middle of the ski resprt, and happens to lie in an area where the greatest need for lift and trail connectivity will lie in terms of tying the different halves of the resort (let alone PCMR) together.

[Andy1962]

Tin Woodsman, on 15 October 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

I think the main difference between Canyons and BC is that the over-zealous housing developments at the latter are on the margins of the resort. Arrowhead and Bachelor Gulch pods are simply low-traffic, easy groomers woven throughout various upscale residential developments. The VAST majority of skier traffic remains in the core of the resort from the main base area and over to Strawberry Park. As such, Arrowhead and BG are just extravagant annoyances but with little impact on the skiing experience. At Canyons, that housing is smack dab in the middle of the ski resprt, and happens to lie in an area where the greatest need for lift and trail connectivity will lie in terms of tying the different halves of the resort (let alone PCMR) together.

Well Vail does have the option of buying back some of those stupidly placed houses (at the Canyons ) and knocking them down to squeeze a lift or two through. ) . I have never seen The Canyons, so I don't know how many houses you would need to take out, but I bet some smart person in Vail Inc is at least thinking about that option in their sleep.

[Peter]

Andy1962, on 15 October 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Well Vail does have the option of buying back some of those stupidly placed houses (at the Canyons ) and knocking them down to squeeze a lift or two through. ) . I have never seen The Canyons, so I don't know how many houses you would need to take out, but I bet some smart person in Vail Inc is at least thinking about that option in their sleep.

Here's a map of The Colony that shows just how many houses there are...and more phases to come.

Attached File(s)

•  web-Homestead-Map-7-9-2014.jpg (235.64K)
  Number of downloads: 123

[Andy1962]

Peter, on 15 October 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

Here's a map of The Colony that shows just how many houses there are...and more phases to come.

(I looked at your attachment of the Canyons housing map) that's just too damn funny for words. Maybe on second thought, in a few places on the hills around the existing canyons lifts, Vail should consider going Snowbird Peruvian Gulch style (the tunnel to Mineral Basin and back) and dig a few underground tunnels with high speed Magic carpets and lower speed loading carpets to get you on the high speed one. (still laughing) Okay fine, there must have been a bit too much Shake n Bake powder on the chicken I just ate for dinner)

But seriously. I just did not know the Canyons had locked themselves in so tightly. I live Ontario Canada so I am laughing at a distance. If Vail can figure out a way to solve the current ski lift problem at The Canyons and make money for their shairholders at the same time, more power to them. :) Then again I am sitting here wishing that I had access to local ski terrain that was half as good as the stuff The Canyons regards as only good for housing, I am jealous :) .

This post has been edited by Andy1962: 29 October 2014 - 01:37 PM

[Tin Woodsman]

Peter, on 15 October 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

Here's a map of The Colony that shows just how many houses there are...and more phases to come.

Wow - it's even worse than I thought.

Even more pathetic, if the future expansion plans are even remotely accurate, there appears to be zero awareness of impacts to the skiing experience on the part of the planners. None of the three lifts depicted serve terrain or vertical that is of any value - they make Peak 5 lift look like KT-22 in comparison. They all appear to simply be amenities to serve the additional housing above 8500' planned for Monitor Flats and far upper White Pine Canyon.

It's this sort of short-sightedness that gives ski resort developers/owners such a bad name. They've pretty much committed every mistake in the book. And I don't anticipate that Vail will be cutting various multi-million dollar checks to homeowners with poorly situated properties. It's downright depressing that people can be this stupid.

[Doug]

Whatever happen to plans for more high alpine lifts?

[jaytrem]

Looks like the only one missing that would create new lift accessed terrain would be the upper Peak 5 lift. Of course most of those lifts went in as fixed grips, but most do exist.

[Doug]

The old map also seems to show Daybreak going all the way to the peak. I've never ridden that lift. What is the terrain like about the the existing chair?

[jaytrem]

Doug, on 29 October 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

The old map also seems to show Daybreak going all the way to the peak. I've never ridden that lift. What is the terrain like about the the existing chair?

Yeah, I guess if Daybreak went to the top you would get a little more terrain. I don't think quality ski terrain was the objective over there though. as for the existing, it's typical intermediate terrain. When it first opened there was more skiing to be had, you could ski all the areas between trails. It wasn't steep but it was pretty nice. Now it's a big real estate developement with lift and few trails. As you can see in the map posted above by Peter that whole side of the resort is more real estate than ski area. At least it looks like Iron Mountain will remain "ski area"ish.

This post has been edited by jaytrem: 29 October 2014 - 07:39 AM