Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Save a Ski Town

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 298 posts

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#131

Post by grecy »

ragnot wrote: post #3

With seasons seemingly getting shorter and/or worse (due to what I assume to be global warming) and the lines just getting absolutely ridiculous [1], I think I've accepted the fact that skiing/snowboarding is going to be a different experience for my kids. That experience probably won't be at a traditional mountain like Killington, Vail, etc. The lines will be too long, too expensive, just overall it will suck. Hones…

> and the lines just getting absolutely ridiculous

Leave the US.

I worked at a mountain in the US where it was quite normal to have a line from 30 minutes before opening until after closing. I would load passengers on every single chair, all day, every day.

I moved up to Canada. It was quite common to go 15-20 minutes without a single person getting on my lift. I regularly ski runs and don't see a single person for the entire run. I often only cross/see my own tracks.

Leave those crowds behind.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#132

Post by kortilla »

ghaff wrote: post #87
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #86

The problem is pretty simple; the stock of mountain resort towns has not kept up to satisfy demand. Imagine 15 or 20 years ago, a trip to a somewhat remote mountain town had a lot of inconveniences like bad internet, unpredictable weather/travel conditions, etc. In the current year, it's very easy to book an entire trip to Vail/Tahoe in 30 minutes. The amenities and infrastructure are decent making it a viable place…

>IMO I think the only solution is to create more mountain towns and ski resorts. Almost impossible given environmental constraints. (Whether one agrees or disagrees.) Even expanding existing resorts is tough. And it's not clear the economics are there given demographics even leaving aside any climate change factors. ADDED: More rural towns with very limited facilities may be possible given Starlink, etc. But they're…

I grew up in the Rockies in the Wyoming/Montana area. There is absolutely enough open mountain space to open more resorts. There are ski resorts open now that are not doing that well financially.

The problem is not the mountain side ski hills, it’s access to the flow of rich people. Ski resorts 2 hours from the Bozeman airport struggle because that’s too inconvenient.

The ski towns that suffer from these problems are a small minority of ski resorts that meet the criteria of:

- town actually right next to a ski resort (many ski resorts don’t have a convenient town attached)

- airport with commercial flights to major hubs within 45 min to an hour drive at most

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#133

Post by mthoms »

geephroh wrote: post #100
barry-cotter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The newspapers reported on the problem: it was so hard to find affordable housing in town that there weren’t enough people left to work in town. That's the problem. Lack of housing. Not popularisation. The article writer don't decry the popularisation in the article though geephroh does.

Lack of housing is, of course, a major part of the problem. And why might you suppose that previously affordable housing in what might have once been a relatively obscure locale is now in tremendous demand? Knowing a number of folks personally who have been priced out of these places -- often the hometown where they hoped to spend their lives -- might give me a different sense of perspective than you seem to have.

>might give me a different sense of perspective than you seem to have.

I've lived in these towns and know lots of these people too. I've never heard one of them seriously complain about Outside Magazine (or similar publications) being responsible for the lack of affordable housing. I mean yeah, I guess they are partly responsible for it in a very round-about way... but you might as well be mad at the internet, ski movies or the Olympic Games. It's a pointless exercise.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#134

Post by davidw »

vkou wrote: post #96
armenarmen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the market could build its way out of this, it already would have I believe the author mentions that there was a proposed large apartment building (250 ish units) that could, presumably, have alleviated some of the demand but that it was voted down by nimby types to avoid CB “becoming aurora” I’d think then that it’s less so the market preventing building than it is voters and activist home owners

The free market is precisely what gave this particular makeup of voters and activist home owners the keys to the kingdom. If you can't afford to pay to play in that municipality, you don't get to vote.

Most YIMBYs are not at all "markets solve all our problems" kinds of people. But this is anything but a free market.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#135

Post by garren »

hamolton wrote: post #110
ragnot wrote: post #3

With seasons seemingly getting shorter and/or worse (due to what I assume to be global warming) and the lines just getting absolutely ridiculous [1], I think I've accepted the fact that skiing/snowboarding is going to be a different experience for my kids. That experience probably won't be at a traditional mountain like Killington, Vail, etc. The lines will be too long, too expensive, just overall it will suck. Hones…

Purg, Wolf Creek, & Loveland haven't had big lines any times I've been there. My mother said Los Alamos, Santa Fe, & Taos lift lines are far better now on powder days than when she grew up thanks to more chairs on lifts + high speed lifts.

In the case of Loveland, you just have to contend with the snarl of traffic on I70. It's right before the Eisenhower tunnel, so it isn't as bad as Vail or Copper just up the road, but I70 traffic has gotten pretty brutal over the years. I've had routine 1 hour drives to/from a resort turn into 3-4+ hours more often than not.

Wolf Creek makes sense though - that's a bit more of a commitment. Your typical skier is probably going to be there for a few days and not just swinging up for a Saturday (at least coming from the front range.)

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#136

Post by refurb »

zz865 wrote: post #5

I quite like the rules in the Tirol - you can only own property if you live there. No second homes, no big hotels, no renting out houses. Just small owner operated hotels and locals.

This is what they do in Banff National Park in Canada (which has several resorts). You can't buy or rent unless you're a resident who lives full time and/or works in the town.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#137

Post by nitrogen »

lbarrow wrote: post #103
SwagGrocery wrote: post #39

There are a lot of comments about eliminating investment properties and providing subsidized housing. Why don't we let the market work itself out? Let's see how magical Crested Butte is in a few years with no intervention. I suspect you'll be able to get a nice ski-in/ski-out condo at a significant discount when there are no longer any businesses open in the town.

I think the real "market" solution here would be to remove the ability of both out-of-town owners and locals to block new housing development. The article cites an example of a 200+ unit development in Brush Creek that was effectively vetoed by local NIMBYs; this in an area where only 800 people voted in the main Crested Butte elections.

The core tenet of democracy is that local inhabitants make local decisions. Doing otherwise is... I don't know what, but it's anti-democratic. If a small mountain town doesn't want outside investors to blow up the place, they have the right to make that choice.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#138

Post by dougmwne »

3finmunchousen wrote: post #119
boringg wrote: post #50

One of the biggest problems that is hitting ski towns is the hyper cheap season passes that everyone buys. The model has created a huge surge of demand for people to go skiing in winter which has put pressure on the local ski towns (more short term rental demands, second home buyers) and the resources at ski mountains (aka the insane lines on a good ski day now). It's interesting because it has allowed a lot more peo…

Been looking through the Vail annual reports. In FY 2010 Season/Epic passes were 35% of ticket revenue, FY 2019 it was 47%, FY 2021 61%. I think your theory has legs.

It’s also an intentional strategy by Vail to shift sales into season passes. A day pass is incredibly expensive, $229 at the ticket window. For about $600 you might as well buy a season pass just in case you get to use it a bit. They are taking a page out of the gym membership model.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#139

Post by themitigating »

nradov wrote: post #83
Swizec wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the problem is one of incentives. New people want more housing but can’t vote because they aren’t residents. Old people want high real estate prices and can vote because they’re residents or own property. Guess who wins when it’s time for local political leadership to decide on important issues. Now if housing wasn’t considered an investment and prices were kept flat somehow, that would solve the nimby proble…

If you actually talk to the existing homeowners you'll find that they're more concerned about maintaining a certain lifestyle than real estate values.

If they are being asked about why they voted against expansion wouldn't it be in their best interest to provide a subjective reason that is difficult to argue against instead of saying "money"
Post reply on HN