# Expansions



## BeefyBoy50 (Nov 14, 2015)

I've spent a lot of time recently reading about proposed/cancelled ski area expansions because it's a topic I find really interesting. One thing I've noticed, however, is that certain regions seem to see a lot more or less expansion activity than others.

For instance, I think that British Columbia is currently the location where it is easiest for any given ski area to add new terrain. One small ski area (Hemlock Resort) just received a 1.5 billion dollar investment towards future expansion.
http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/11/1-5-billion-investment-into-b-c-ski-area
In addition, it has been easy for resorts such as Kicking Horse, Revelstoke, Whistler, etc. to add new terrain in the past.

In the Rockies in the last decade, it seems like expansion has been a bit more difficult to achieve but still possible - Park City's acquisition of the Canyons (can barely be called an expansion IMO), the growth onto Peak 6 at Breckenridge. A large investment of money (typically by Vail Resorts or another large corporation) always greatly helps such expansions.

Lastly, there is the East Coast, where it seems like ski areas were growing exponentially back in the 1980s but have for the most part become entirely stagnant in the last 20 years. I'm wondering why any of you think this is. I'm not as concerned with the benefits and disadvantages of ski area expansions (some say it brings no new skiers to the market and is therefore an ineffective strategy/ is worse for our natural areas). I would love to see growth in ski areas in the east coast, but I think it has become much more difficult financially and is therefore generally not worth the effort.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 14, 2015)

Diminishing ROI.  The industry is flat and will likely be in significant decline as baby boomers leave the sport.


----------



## Jully (Nov 14, 2015)

Not sure about the west or Canada, but in the East many mountains, especially ones with the population/skier visits to do expansions are usually on forest service land or other protected areas.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Nov 14, 2015)

BC definitely is the best place for expansion and has happened frequently over the last decade. It's also the reason you can find a shit load of cat and heli operations popping up all over the place. It's strange because Alberta is the exact opposite (even outside of the national park)


----------



## ss20 (Nov 14, 2015)

Because you can't, lol.  

Sunapee's expansions will never happen as long as the state in in control.
The Killington-Pico interconnect won't happen for 10+ years because of economics and lack of seeing return by Powdr.
Jay Peak has been held up by financials.

Recent, successful expansions have been scaled down or minimally disruptive tot he environment (because that's all that can be approved nowadays.

Loon's South peak took 20 years because of permitting.
Bretton Wood's put in a T-Bar and all gladed terrain.
Sugarloaf's Brackett Basin is all very undisturbed with just glade.
Cannon's Mittersill was already there, and had minimal cutting up until this year.
Pat's Peak "expansion" was 7 short trails with 300 vertical feet.


Loooonnnggg gone are the days of "10 new trails with 1,000 vertical drop and a new base lodge".  Too much hassle for too little return.  I am interested in seeing how Waterville's and Ragged's expansions come along.  But even those look like they're going to be scaled down significantly.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 14, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Loooonnnggg gone are the days of "10 new trails with 1,000 vertical drop and a new base lodge".  Too much hassle for too little return.  I am interested in seeing how Waterville's and Ragged's expansions come along.  But even those look like they're going to be scaled down significantly.



And yet more reason to believe that huge expansion at the Balsams will never happen.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 15, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Because you can't, lol.
> 
> Sunapee's expansions will never happen as long as the state in in control.
> The Killington-Pico interconnect won't happen for 10+ years because of economics and lack of seeing return by Powdr.
> ...



Hate to say it, but I agree.  Regulations, lack of capital, and economics are all reasons.  

Out here in Utah there are a few projects on the drawing boards, but they are fraught with challenges.  

Snowbird wants to expand into Mary Ellen Gulch--which they own a large portion of, spent their own money cleaning up someone else's mining mess, and only realistically want one lift in the basin and to extend Mineral Basin Express downslope a bit.  Yet, the Utah County NIMBY crowd (yes, they do exist in that red county) have stalled it again for now.  

Alta also wants to expand into Grizzly Gulch and in other areas.  Also opposed by the backcountry skiing crowd.  

The One Wasatch Project to connect the seven Wasatch resorts--controversial.  Mainly over access and land use conflicts.  

Only really in the Park City and Ogden areas are places able to move ahead with their plans.  Deer Valley has plans to expand down to the bottom of Mayflower.  They intend on moving their day base area over there.  No real opposition.  Lots of real estate in play there.  

I doubt that PCMR is going to expand anymore.  The only thing folks will probably see are replaced lifts and maybe a few new homes here and there but nothing huge.  Their recent connection did not involve much new development--one lift over one major ridgeline.  Only controversy, that did not go anywhere, was from the local backcountry crowd upset that they would lose access to that ridge.  But let's be honest there was not much terrain in play really.  

Nordic Valley--they have big plans, but nobody is really opposed.  They are moving ahead slowly.  

Powder Mountain--despite the hoopla from a few years back by their inexperienced but new age moneyed owners, the have not done anything really.  There are plans for some real estate....high end for their friends.  

So out here things are on the drawing boards, but the same issues, more or less.


----------



## machski (Nov 15, 2015)

I would add in the east, snowmaking is required for any expansion.  As we have seen with rising energy costs, the snowmaking window has become shorter and shorter.  Many of the largest areas don't even make snow everywhere they can now.  Why add more terrain to the mix?


----------



## HowieT2 (Nov 15, 2015)

With overall skier visits flat at best, and the increasing popularity of backcountry recreation, it just doesn't make sense to invest significant capital in new trails.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 15, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Because you can't, lol.
> 
> Sunapee's expansions will never happen as long as the state in in control.
> .



The state is not the issue with the Sunapee project any longer.  It's more an issue of local opposition.

http://mobile.vnews.com/home/16544097-108/state-approves-mt-sunapee-expansion


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 15, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> The state is not the issue with the Sunapee project any longer.  It's more an issue of local opposition.
> 
> http://mobile.vnews.com/home/16544097-108/state-approves-mt-sunapee-expansion



True.  Lynch was the one who was very opposed to it.  He's since moved on to other things.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 15, 2015)

from_the_NEK said:


> And yet more reason to believe that huge expansion at the Balsams will never happen.



Dude, you're talking about Mr. Otten.  He can do anything   You know he won a World Series, right?


----------



## Harvey (Nov 15, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Diminishing ROI.  The industry is flat and will likely be in significant decline as baby boomers leave the sport.



Something something... "my cold dead hands..."


----------



## spiderpig (Nov 15, 2015)

Seems like it's all gonna be real estate-based expansions. I didn't think this Okemo South Face Village would be a success, but the lift is at least in this year.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 16, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> BC definitely is the best place for expansion and has happened frequently over the last decade. It's also the reason you can find a shit load of cat and heli operations popping up all over the place. It's strange because Alberta is the exact opposite (even outside of the national park)


I think its more that Alberta's snowfall is way inferior to BC.Interior BC gets 3 times as much.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 16, 2015)

Jully said:


> Not sure about the west or Canada, but in the East many mountains, especially ones with the population/skier visits to do expansions are usually on forest service land or other protected areas.



State/National forest is not an issue, they could care less about using the land.  Typically it's anyone who is anti-development, they will look for any excuse as to why things shouldn't be done - wildlife habitat, etc.


----------



## Tin (Nov 16, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> I think its more that Alberta's snowfall is way inferior to BC.Interior BC gets 3 times as much.




Just looked that up and couldn't believe it. The lower mountain area of Kicking Horse averages less than most of the Berkshires (~100"). Up top is just below 300".


----------



## MadMadWorld (Nov 16, 2015)

Another point is that most of the expansion to areas of Kicking Horse and Revelstoke were only on paper. The Super Bowl (how have they not been sued yet?) area of Kicking Horse area had been skied for years but they just made it more accessible and now it's officially patrolled. No trees were cut (other scrub brush on the runout) and no lifts added...all hike to terrain. Both areas have tons of room for expansion though.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 16, 2015)

In the east it is exceptionally important to have "critical mass" to justify terrain (and lifts). Look at Killington eliminating lower sunrise when their visits dropped, a deleting two lifts.  It's not like the west with natural snow.  Roughly, you need about 1,000 yearly skier visits (minimum) for every acre of snowmaking terrain in the east, and that terrain is open for at least 3 months.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 16, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> Another point is that most of the expansion to areas of Kicking Horse and Revelstoke were only on paper. The Super Bowl (how have they not been sued yet?) area of Kicking Horse area had been skied for years but they just made it more accessible and now it's officially patrolled. No trees were cut (other scrub brush on the runout) and no lifts added...all hike to terrain. Both areas have tons of room for expansion though.



Roger Goddell just read this and is considering his options.....


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 17, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> Another point is that most of the expansion to areas of Kicking Horse and Revelstoke were only on paper.


Revelstoke expansion was certainly anything but just on paper.


----------



## wtcobb (Nov 17, 2015)

"Expansion" at Breck approved - just not skier expansion. Zip lines, bike paths, etc. 

http://adventure-journal.com/2015/11/forest-service-okays-breckenridge-expansion/

More resorts are making these types of improvements/expansions instead of strict terrain enhancements to get more bang out of the already existing services year-round. In light of the diminishing ski crowd, shortened snow window, and rising energy costs already mentioned in this thread, it makes sense to get more revenue through other means.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 17, 2015)

wtcobb said:


> "Expansion" at Breck approved - just not skier expansion. Zip lines, bike paths, etc.
> 
> http://adventure-journal.com/2015/11/forest-service-okays-breckenridge-expansion/
> 
> More resorts are making these types of improvements/expansions instead of strict terrain enhancements to get more bang out of the already existing services year-round. In light of the diminishing ski crowd, shortened snow window, and rising energy costs already mentioned in this thread, it makes sense to get more revenue through other means.



In other news, 6-Flags and Disney are looking to get into the ski resort business.  They will be the first ski resorts with amusement park rides and no actual skiing.


----------



## 1Kathleen (Nov 17, 2015)

Don't forget about Waterville's Green Peak expansion. Hopefully it's name doesn't mean the trails are all green. After many years of dealing with environmental issues and the U.S. Forest service , and shortly after the Sununu's became major shareholder (hmmm?), the 52 acres expansion was approved. 52 acres, 8 trails with 12 acres of glades serviced by a triple chair. Tree cutting began in May 2015. My guess the trails will be a mix of green and easy blues.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## MadMadWorld (Nov 17, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> Revelstoke expansion was certainly anything but just on paper.



Not sure if that was truly expansion or just part of the original design. It's one of the newer resorts out there. I was referring more to North and Greely Bowl being added.


----------



## MadPadraic (Nov 18, 2015)

Sunday River could do with some expansion, preferably down the backsides rather than outwards. Also, Breck's Peak 6 expansion is hilarious: the access chair dumps riders out onto a narrow ledge with a double fall line, and entertaining carnage en-souse.


----------



## Rowsdower (Nov 18, 2015)

Worth pointing out that the youngest East Coast ski area is Whitetail in PA, and it only joined us in 1991.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 18, 2015)

Rowsdower said:


> Worth pointing out that the youngest East Coast ski area is Whitetail in PA, and it only joined us in 1991.



"Only" 24 years old? That is a statement to itself.

This also omits area that were closed for many years before being rebuilt from the ground up. This is what the Balsams wants to be and what Crotched is.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Nov 19, 2015)

MadPadraic said:


> Sunday River could do with some expansion, preferably down the backsides rather than outwards. Also, Breck's Peak 6 expansion is hilarious: the access chair dumps riders out onto a narrow ledge with a double fall line, and entertaining carnage en-souse.



Last I heard SR was looking out past Jordan for expansion. Sadly haven't heard anything about the backside.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2015)

What's the appeal of the backside of SR?  Pitch?

Wouldn't it be fairly difficult to keep decent coverage on due to exposure?


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 19, 2015)

Sunday River has enough terrain to cover, even with their massive snowmaking system. I don't see it happening.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 19, 2015)

The Crotch should think about open the original part of the Crotch


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2015)

would love to see it.  Wonder if they'd get an ROI though


----------



## Gforce (Nov 19, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Hate to say it, but I agree.  Regulations, lack of capital, and economics are all reasons.
> 
> Out here in Utah there are a few projects on the drawing boards, but they are fraught with challenges.
> 
> ...





Exactly.  Skier visits are down 5% year over year and snow sports is practically a zero growth business.  The East is an entirely different animal than out west due to altitude, climate, expansive land, regulations, etc.. There's basically no meaningful expansions happening in the NE. Small scale Cap Ex limited to snow-making upgrades, cut a new trail, replace an ancient lift, refurb a 1970's ski lodge etc. etc.. nothing exciting, that's about it.

The recent M&A activity with big resort operators and associated capital- the shear numbers/stats of the West's resorts & visits enable expansion, although probably temporary. 

Back East ...forgettaboutit.


----------



## Jully (Nov 19, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Sunday River has enough terrain to cover, even with their massive snowmaking system. I don't see it happening.



In terms of snowmaking the advent of the low energy guns might change this equation. Skier visits is another story and I don't think it'll happen either sadly.

Unless Otten complete phase 1 of the Balsams and then goes off and creates ASC 2.0 and buys back SR and a dozen other resorts (jk).


----------



## ScottySkis (Nov 19, 2015)

Bearpen needs to get opened again in the Catskills.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2015)

Gforce said:


> Exactly.  Skier visits are down 5% year over year and snow sports is practically a zero growth business.  The East is an entirely different animal than out west due to altitude, climate, expansive land, regulations, etc.. There's basically no meaningful expansions happening in the NE. Small scale Cap Ex limited to snow-making upgrades, cut a new trail, replace an ancient lift, refurb a 1970's ski lodge etc. etc.. nothing exciting, that's about it.
> 
> The recent M&A activity with big resort operators and associated capital- the shear numbers/stats of the West's resorts & visits enable expansion, although probably temporary.
> 
> Back East ...forgettaboutit.



I'm not so pessimistic.  We have the potential for a renaissance of eastern skiing due to low energy snowguns, $40/barrel oil, wide rocker skis, EB-5 investment, online deals and hopefully lower electricity costs.


----------



## machski (Nov 19, 2015)

Jully said:


> In terms of snowmaking the advent of the low energy guns might change this equation. Skier visits is another story and I don't think it'll happen either sadly.
> 
> Unless Otten complete phase 1 of the Balsams and then goes off and creates ASC 2.0 and buys back SR and a dozen other resorts (jk).



Not going to happen until they complete the planned (and supposedly begun several seasons ago) water pump capacity increase with a direct new pump line to the western side.  The low E guns have left the resort with plenty of air, the water is the low capacity part.


----------



## Rowsdower (Nov 19, 2015)

What would it take for skiing to become a growing industry again, or would you say this is as big as it gets?


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2015)

A society with a lot more disposable income.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Nov 19, 2015)

Gforce said:


> Exactly.  Skier visits are down 5% year over year and snow sports is practically a zero growth business.  The East is an entirely different animal than out west due to altitude, climate, expansive land, regulations, etc.. There's basically no meaningful expansions happening in the NE. Small scale Cap Ex limited to snow-making upgrades, cut a new trail, replace an ancient lift, refurb a 1970's ski lodge etc. etc.. nothing exciting, that's about it.
> 
> The recent M&A activity with big resort operators and associated capital- the shear numbers/stats of the West's resorts & visits enable expansion, although probably temporary.
> 
> Back East ...forgettaboutit.



Balsams pretty significant.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 19, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> I'm not so pessimistic.  We have the potential for a renaissance of eastern skiing due to low energy snowguns, $40/barrel oil, wide rocker skis, EB-5 investment, online deals and hopefully lower electricity costs.



Let's hope that long term the multiple nuclear plant closures in the East coupled with the continual red tape associated with natural gas, or new oil fired power generation plants and the NIMBY crowd who is opposed to nuclear/gas/oil and also don't want any large scale wind or solar plants constructed near them won't effect the cheaper energy we're seeing now.  And that doesn't even include any issues that could arise in the Middle East to cause a spike in oil prices again!!!


----------



## Jully (Nov 19, 2015)

Rowsdower said:


> What would it take for skiing to become a growing industry again, or would you say this is as big as it gets?



Beyond money, maybe a few big names, athletes or others, who get into it and publicize it?

If a big reality TV show has a big skiing segment? Maybe I'm making out the general public to be too sheep-like.


----------



## Mapnut (Nov 19, 2015)

The only thing that suggests to me any potential for growth in skiing is the increase I observe in the numbers of people hiking. It's healthy, back to nature, and aesthetically pleasing if you have a nice area to hike. I go to the Hudson Highlands, just an hour from New York City and quite scenic. Parking at the trailheads, and wear-and-tear on the trails are getting to be problems. I'm not sure how muck hiking is increasing elsewhere, but I hear the Appalachian Trail is more popular than ever.

Big difference with skiing is that you need lessons and equipment and tickets and usually have to drive further.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 19, 2015)

Rowsdower said:


> What would it take for skiing to become a growing industry again, or would you say this is as big as it gets?


I've been thinking about this a bit.  My gut reaction was to say that the middle class needs to have the levels of disposable income that they used to enjoy.  However, I see LOTS of people doing very well in the Boston and New York City area.  There is still money out there.

On the other hand, the economy of the rural areas where the ski areas are located has been clobbered.  They have gone from having a solid manufacturing economy to a tourism economy or a near total welfare state.  In my opinion, this may be the biggest game-changer.  While city people always came to northern New England to ski, the hills were also full of locals.  Here in northeastern Vermont, just about everyone I speak to over the age of 50 grew up skiing, and if physically able, continues to ski.  But younger families just don't have the money.  We went from skiing and/or snowmobiling being the leisure activity of most families to being the leisure activity of a small minority of families.  The money simply isn't there.

In addition to the poor economy in rural areas, the cost of skiing has outpaced inflation - and for good reason.  We now demand high speed lifts and massive snowmaking infrastructure.  You just can't run a ski area for as cheap as you used to be able to run one.  In a lot of ways, catering to a more well-to-do clientele has negatively impacted the less well-to-do since lift tickets are not priced based on one's ability to pay.  Everyone is forced to pay for these upgrades whether or not they can afford it.  I'm not saying that this is wrong.  It just is what it is.  But you can trace the closure of a LOT of ski areas to the arms race for snowmaking and lifts.  

Bottom line, for the locals, less money is chasing a much more expensive product.  I don't see this changing anytime soon.


----------



## mbedle (Nov 19, 2015)

I think the problem with Sunday River is the lack of vertical, they are still limited to the 1,200 - $1,400 foot range going west. The biggest vertical, unfortunately, is facing south.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2015)

I just think they have plenty of terrain for the amount of people that go there already.


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 19, 2015)

uphillklimber said:


> Hey, do you live near a wind plant?



I don't but I'll take your bait!


----------



## Gforce (Nov 19, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> I'm not so pessimistic.  We have the potential for a renaissance of eastern skiing due to low energy snowguns, $40/barrel oil, wide rocker skis, EB-5 investment, online deals and hopefully lower electricity costs.




"Renaissance". I love that!  I certainly hope so, it would be great. However my money is not on that happening. I just don't see the next generation and young families barreling into the sport, and there is so much competition for that precious disposable personal income. The time and financial commitment is way high.


----------



## dlague (Nov 20, 2015)

Rowsdower said:


> What would it take for skiing to become a growing industry again, or would you say this is as big as it gets?





uphillklimber said:


> We can start by inviting friends. Taking your children (and for some of us, our grandchildren).
> 
> Unfortunately, this is an expensive sport, just gearing up is often a non starter. Then the ticket prices, the weekend crowds, the cost of just getting there. Not to mention the "On Mountain Pricing".





VTKilarney said:


> I've been thinking about this a bit.  My gut reaction was to say that the middle class needs to have the levels of disposable income that they used to enjoy.  However, I see LOTS of people doing very well in the Boston and New York City area.  There is still money out there.
> 
> On the other hand, the economy of the rural areas where the ski areas are located has been clobbered.  They have gone from having a solid manufacturing economy to a tourism economy or a near total welfare state.  In my opinion, this may be the biggest game-changer.  While city people always came to northern New England to ski, the hills were also full of locals.  Here in northeastern Vermont, just about everyone I speak to over the age of 50 grew up skiing, and if physically able, continues to ski.  But younger families just don't have the money.  We went from skiing and/or snowmobiling being the leisure activity of most families to being the leisure activity of a small minority of families.  The money simply isn't there.
> 
> ...



Overall, there are a number of factors that limit growth in the ski/snowboard industry.  Obviously southern states do not have much exposure to the sport so that gets rid of a fairly large part of the population.  Economics plays a large role obviously since this sport is expensive and with something like 48% of US families of some sort of government program, well, that gets rid of another part of the population.  Then there the risk averse that just plain fear the sport or do not like the cold and are hermits during the winter.  With all that into consideration, I do think that we are near peak and there will be an eventual decline since aging baby boomers with start to slow down and unless they have kids who continue, growth will be minimal if not declining.  

That being said, the industry is trying to attract new skiers and snowboards through January Learn to Ski/snowboard month, bring a friend and ski free, free gear with a lesson package, school programs, etc.  I am not sure how effective those are but the "Bring a Friend" at Killington allows you to ski free while the friend pays $135 - obviously unless your a jerk that would be split and it is still a deal at less than $70.  However, I think people fall out of the sport at a similar pace or they are one and dones.

As uphillklimber mentioned, growth with in families is really the best way to grow the sport.  I have skied much of my life, my second wife learned to ski with me and lucky for me she is all in.  We have four boys who have also skied since they were tikes, of the four, one has no interest in snowboarding again (warm weather guy).  The boys that are older ski less often then they did when they were home.  So we have even seen a decline in skier visits with in the family, but that could change.  In addition to my immediate family, I have four siblings and three have families that ski.  I would always talk to them about how much fun we are having as a family and they decided to take it up.  We post a lot on FB and we know people that saw what we are doing and now ski, with one family in particular who went all in this year and spent about $2100 on gear.  They even went to the ski show and looked and walked around in amazement.  

With all being said, cost and risk are the two biggest hurdles especially when the lift ticket prices are inching closer to $100 and in one case over.  Even the cost of gear is crazy to most, but you can easily spend the same of not more on MTB, Kayaks, SUP etc.

As far as expansion, as mentioned earlier Balsams would be significant in NE.  However, there are other places like Ragged with Pinnacle Peak, Sunapee with West Bowl, Jay Peak with West Bowl, Waterville with Green Peak, Tenney resurrected and has plans to expand, Gunstock with Alpine Ridge which are all examples of planned expansions - whether they come to fruition is another story.  Cannon and Pats Peak are examples of expansions that happened recently.  There is also a rise in reopening feeder hills like Eustis and saving places like Whaleback, Lost Valley, Black of Maine now Tenney and possibly Ascutney.  These places are being bolstered by the increase in cost of skiing IMO.  While the more well off have Stowe, Sugarbush, and other likes of Killington.  Those who are interested in skiing but do not want to spend and do not know of deals have places like the feeder resorts.


----------



## MadPadraic (Nov 21, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> What's the appeal of the backside of SR?  Pitch?
> 
> Wouldn't it be fairly difficult to keep decent coverage on due to exposure?



Greater trail options off of any given lift, and some relief from the heavy crowds.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 21, 2015)

uphillklimber said:


> The appeal of SR??? The same could be asked of any ski area,FWIW.
> 
> IMO, the appeal of SR is that first of all, it is skiing. And they are oftenthe first with any meaningful terrain, as they are not afraid to blow snow.Second, while the runs are not as long as the loaf, they still have some decentlength to them. Then there is the variety. With all those trails stretched out allover the place, you can find a huge variety of trails. You can have straightand steep, or winding thru the woods over hill and dale, moguls, trees, pretty muchanything you want. And you won’t have just one tree run to choose from, thereare a good dozen or so to choose from, same with moguls, steeps, rollers, whatever.On any given day, I may be inclined to ski Vortex and I may do some laps there.Or I may be more inclined to ski some moguls. Some days, I simply do not knowwhat I want until I get started. I am sure to find it at the river.
> 
> If I have opportunity to ski a good many times, I’d like my pass and localmountain to afford me the opportunity for variety depending on my mood. Andenough variety that I don’t get bored in a day.



You misread his post - it asked "What's the appeal of the BACKSIDE of SR?"


----------



## machski (Nov 22, 2015)

uphillklimber said:


> I'm not sure the river owns much on the backside, can anyone confirm? I do know that they own beyond Jordan Bowl, enough to double the size.



No, not enough to double the size.  What they own beyond Jordan lacks the elevation and vert of Jordan.  The plans for that are still in the offices from LBO's days, but I doubt they ever do that.  Makes the resort even wider and without LBO's planned Jordan village, no sense stretching even further west without a base out that way.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 23, 2015)

Jordan is already way out of the way by road.


----------



## machski (Nov 23, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> Jordan is already way out of the way by road.



Yup, but you want to be even further West on another peak/trail pod?  Just seems too remote without a base lodge over that way to push out further.


----------



## Jully (Nov 23, 2015)

I would assume that any expansion out west would be supported by new real estate at a minimum, and a base area type deal with it.

All that makes it even more unlikely in my mind.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 23, 2015)

I would think the smarter money would be on 4 season amenities in the South Ridge area.


----------



## Jully (Nov 23, 2015)

Definitely smarter money. I doubt more terrain is going to pull visits from anywhere else.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 23, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I would think the smarter money would be on 4 season amenities in the South Ridge area.



K did this instead of South Ridge.:razz:


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 23, 2015)

It was a smart move by K.  Smarter than the Interconnect too


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 24, 2015)

I'm thinking more Jay Peak style investment. Indoor water park or serious aquatics center, indoor skating rink etc.  Wedding business is an easy sell in the mountains.  It's largely dependent on hiring the right experienced wedding planner and having proper resort exposure at big wedding trade events.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 24, 2015)

You don't think Jay is superdepressed economically?

They were big money EB5 investments.  Apparently they see more total yearly visitors to the water park than skiers

I don't think comparing Hebrons facility and how it's marketed is apples to apples with Jays which is run as a business and taxed.  My understanding is the Jay rink sees a ton of use. Lots of tournaments, which also fill hotel rooms.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 24, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm thinking more Jay Peak style investment. Indoor water park or serious aquatics center, indoor skating rink etc.  Wedding business is an easy sell in the mountains.  It's largely dependent on hiring the right experienced wedding planner and having proper resort exposure at big wedding trade events.



The tough thing for Sunday River is that North Conway is such a draw for summer tourist traffic.  While they aren't far away, they are far enough away that they don't get any meaningful overflow.  They'd have to figure out something that North Conway doesn't already have.  I've always thought that it would be a good place for a Kingdom Trails style mountain biking facility.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 24, 2015)

uphillklimber said:


> Actually, I know little of the Jay Peak area. I know littleof any similar facilities near Jay peak. I am surprised that Jay does morebusiness outside of winter. That is certainly good news. It does make onewonder, if that is such a good formula for success, why not give it a go atSunday River?
> 
> I’d really like to hear the number crunchers perspective on this.



Jay doesn't do more business outside of the winter season.  Trust me.  A lot of the summer visitors to the water park are on super cheap off-season passes.  I'm not at all convinced that the waterpark turns a profit in the summer, but I don't really know.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 24, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> The tough thing for Sunday River is that North Conway is such a draw for summer tourist traffic.  While they aren't far away, they are far enough away that they don't get any meaningful overflow.  They'd have to figure out something that North Conway doesn't already have.  I've always thought that it would be a good place for a Kingdom Trails style mountain biking facility.



Well Jay is close to Canada to get the Hockey tournies. Like Lake Placid you can meet "half way" at these places. 
As far as North Conway they already have the water park so putting another one an hour away is risky.


----------



## wtcobb (Nov 24, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Jay doesn't do more business outside of the winter season.  Trust me.  A lot of the summer visitors to the water park are on super cheap off-season passes.  I'm not at all convinced that the waterpark turns a profit in the summer, but I don't really know.



I wouldn't expect the waterpark to float Jay's business in the offseason, but how about their corporate packages (golf, conferences, etc.)? I thought I read that luring business retreats would be a goal of their new facilities. I have no numbers or anything, more of an inquiry as to this side of the business vs. the summer family tourist draw.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 24, 2015)

uphillklimber said:


> Actually, I know little of the Jay Peak area. I know littleof any similar facilities near Jay peak. I am surprised that Jay does morebusiness outside of winter. That is certainly good news. It does make onewonder, if that is such a good formula for success, why not give it a go atSunday River?
> 
> I’d really like to hear the number crunchers perspective on this.



Didn't mean to imply that they do more business in the summer, hence my wording of Total Visitors.  Sorry for the confusion. So, those numbers would include all 4 seasons.  It probably falls well short of skiing in terms of revenue, but my point was diversification of the business.  That's what I see Sunday River needing to do to grow. They've got more than enough ski terrain.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 24, 2015)

uphillklimber said:


> Let’s not forget Sunday River did have some water slides,which failed, they sold them to a stand alone summer Water park for a dollarand they also failed.


outdoor waterpark vs indoor waterpark at a hotel 2 different animals and as i said with one already in North Conway where there are a lot of other things to do in the summer it would fail at SR.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 24, 2015)

wtcobb said:


> I wouldn't expect the waterpark to float Jay's business in the offseason, but how about their corporate packages (golf, conferences, etc.)? I thought I read that luring business retreats would be a goal of their new facilities. I have no numbers or anything, more of an inquiry as to this side of the business vs. the summer family tourist draw.



It's a tough location for business conferences.  They do what they can do, but I'm not sure how much that really is.  The golf course gets very little buzz, at least from locals, and the reality is that they built a golf course just as the sport began a death spiral.  I am aware of the membership levels of some other area golf courses, and let's just say that it's not a pretty picture.

The biggest problem for Jay is their location.  It's just not a nice place to be in the summer.  There is a reason Stenger lives on Lake Memphremagog and not up at Jay.  There really isn't anything they can do to overcome this.


----------



## machski (Nov 25, 2015)

uphillklimber said:


> Let’s not forget Sunday River did have some water slides,which failed, they sold them to a stand alone summer Water park for a dollarand they also failed.



You cannot compare those pathetic waterslides Sunday River had to what Jay built.  The Jay Waterpark is year round and big enough with slide, surf ride, lazy river and food and beverage to be an attraction in and of itself.  At the least, it provides a diversion when weather caps out that the resort owns.


----------

