Note to river and admin: When Marc was contemplating his move west, I told him that the existence of Mammoth alone made living in L.A. better for a skier than living in Vermont. Are you convinced by now?
Where to live?
- Thread starter Tony Crocker
- Start date
Tony Crocker":1u7ha0r3 said:
Not quite. No disrespect intended, but it's still a 5-hour drive each way. That's like saying that Mont-Sainte-Anne makes Boston a great place to live. I'll take my 20-minute drive up canyon any day over a 10-hour round-trip drive. I'd take my 45-minute drive from when I lived in Burlington over it, too.
Mammoth has a ton to offer, but it's still in the middle of freakin' nowhere.
I humbly concede that our administrator's current home location is unsurpassed in North America from a skier's viewpoint.
I would rather be 5 hours from Mammoth than 45 minutes from the Northern Vermont snowbelt. I have skied Vermont's finest, and Mt. Baldy is comparable in terrain quality (similar in many ways to MRG), though it is considerably less reliable in snow. The SoCal local skiing is what makes me confident in this analysis. A good year here (1998, 2001, 2005) is comparable in snow to an average year in Vermont. But even in those years I spend much more time at Mammoth, even taking the distance into account.
Are Ottawa and Montreal nicer cities to live in than L.A.? That's a different topic, which I'll not engage here. On November 7, 1993 I skied Killington (upper Cascade, Bunny Buster and Superstar open) in conjunction with a job interview in Concord, NH. I talked with many New England locals that day, and on Nov. 7 these were obviously the diehards. All of them told me I would be nuts to leave California from a skier's perspective.
I would rather be 5 hours from Mammoth than 45 minutes from the Northern Vermont snowbelt. I have skied Vermont's finest, and Mt. Baldy is comparable in terrain quality (similar in many ways to MRG), though it is considerably less reliable in snow. The SoCal local skiing is what makes me confident in this analysis. A good year here (1998, 2001, 2005) is comparable in snow to an average year in Vermont. But even in those years I spend much more time at Mammoth, even taking the distance into account.
Are Ottawa and Montreal nicer cities to live in than L.A.? That's a different topic, which I'll not engage here. On November 7, 1993 I skied Killington (upper Cascade, Bunny Buster and Superstar open) in conjunction with a job interview in Concord, NH. I talked with many New England locals that day, and on Nov. 7 these were obviously the diehards. All of them told me I would be nuts to leave California from a skier's perspective.
thundermtn
New member
perhaps less consistent, less reliable BUT there are still quality turns to be had here in SoCal in may.
Thunder Mtn. (chair 3) from chair 4 terrain
Thunder Mtn. (chair 3) from chair 4 terrain
I wasn't comparing the Killington November to SoCal, but rather March 2003 at Stowe, MRG and Jay.
Killington is the southern limit of the snowbelt at 250 inches per year. Only Smuggs and Jay are over 300. Baldy averages 175 with tremendous volatility. It exceeds 250 in about 1/3 of seasons, thus my comment that "a good year here is comparable in snow to an average year in Vermont." With regard to snow preservation, I'd say it's pretty equal, with Vermont's rain inflicting at least as much damage as SoCal's heat. Even in good years I don't recall many Vermont areas with 70% of terrain open and wall-to-wall off-trail skiing in mid-April (or 30% open in mid-May), as we have this year at Baldy.
I would say that the "skier value" of a well-located place in New England (like my potential employer in Concord) is about double the value of L.A.'s local skiing. But I would point out that the big metro areas are much farther from the highest quality eastern skiing than I am from Baldy. I think I have a better shot at grabbing short-notice powder days than someone in NYC, and probably as good as someone in Boston.
Since the value to me of the Sierra is about twice the value of SoCal local (twice as much time, vertical and powder skied lifetime), put the two together and it would exceed even the perfect location (probably Burlington) in New England. The only way you don't come to this conclusion is to place nearly all the value in the areas within daytrip distance and almost none in those within weekend distance.
And if you aren't confined by your job to big metro areas, why choose Burlington? Go for the jackpot, like our administrator.
Killington is the southern limit of the snowbelt at 250 inches per year. Only Smuggs and Jay are over 300. Baldy averages 175 with tremendous volatility. It exceeds 250 in about 1/3 of seasons, thus my comment that "a good year here is comparable in snow to an average year in Vermont." With regard to snow preservation, I'd say it's pretty equal, with Vermont's rain inflicting at least as much damage as SoCal's heat. Even in good years I don't recall many Vermont areas with 70% of terrain open and wall-to-wall off-trail skiing in mid-April (or 30% open in mid-May), as we have this year at Baldy.
I would say that the "skier value" of a well-located place in New England (like my potential employer in Concord) is about double the value of L.A.'s local skiing. But I would point out that the big metro areas are much farther from the highest quality eastern skiing than I am from Baldy. I think I have a better shot at grabbing short-notice powder days than someone in NYC, and probably as good as someone in Boston.
Since the value to me of the Sierra is about twice the value of SoCal local (twice as much time, vertical and powder skied lifetime), put the two together and it would exceed even the perfect location (probably Burlington) in New England. The only way you don't come to this conclusion is to place nearly all the value in the areas within daytrip distance and almost none in those within weekend distance.
And if you aren't confined by your job to big metro areas, why choose Burlington? Go for the jackpot, like our administrator.
riverc0il
New member
i hated LA when i was out there. didn't like san fran either. best thing about my visits to california were the coast line. i pretty much hate all conjustion of any kind, but aside from that, there's something about CA itself that disagrees with me. i suspect salt lake city utah area i'd have similar reservations about, but i'll with hold judgement until i have actually visited. if i eventually make that move, likely the decision where to go would be less based on the actual mountains and more based on the area and community. well, some due consideration to off piste, pow, and terrain... but you know what i mean. honestly, i love new england and it would take some mighty impressive skiing to make me pack my bags and leave everything i have here behind.Tony Crocker":29eezefd said:
Patrick
Active member
Tony Crocker":1e9w73rm said:
I concede than SLC is very good location. =D>
Even when the skiing is really great, 5 hours is a bit much. I have done a few crazy weekend where I would drive that amount from Ottawa, but it's very demanding physically over time and would definately not do it very weekend.
I know probably a whole bunch of people that would pick the L.A. climat over Ottawa/Montreal anytime, but these people HATE winter. :roll:
When I was talking about Montreal/Ottawa (only places where I have lived), I was taking as a skier point of view. For cities with a population of over 1 million, I don't think I have anything to complain about.
Ottawa:
Within 25 miles from downtown Ottawa, you have 4 small ski areas. I have changed my tune over the years with the addition of young kids. I am having a record year because of it (43 days/nights so far - 27 at the 6 surrounding ski areas (75 minutes drive or less)).
Montreal:
Although not as close to the country and ski hill, there are over a dozen ski areas within a hour drive. In my opinion, all the East best skiing is within a 3-4 hours radius from the city. To name the biggest and best known:
<1.5hr: Tremblant, Jay
1.5-2hr: Smuggs, Whiteface
2-2.5hr: Stowe, MRG, Sugarbush
2.5-3.5hr: Killington, Cannon, Sunday River, Sugarloaf, Ste.Anne
3.5-4hr: Wildcat, Mt.Washington, Le Massif
Other good locations (over 1million): Vancouver, Calgary, Boston. Burlington would definately be on this list if it's were bigger.
We had this discussion at home before. Where to live? Anywhere in Canada or France (wife has dual citizenship). Although Vancouver is a great location, I would personnally miss the Winter in the city aspect. Something I miss each time I spent Christmas with the in-laws in France, regardless if day trips to the Alps are possible.
HOWEVER, I would probably love living in smaller places like Chamonix or Bourg St-Maurice (Val d'Isère-tignes, Les Arcs, etc...)
Patrick, the geographer
I believe the 250 for Killington is accurate, but it is measured from the very top at over 4,000 ft. Lower down where most of the skiing is may be a different story.
Once you get into the non-skiing factors, it depends a whole lot on one's individual preferences. My offhand guess is that someone coming from New England might want to look closely at the Pacific Northwest.
Once you get into the non-skiing factors, it depends a whole lot on one's individual preferences. My offhand guess is that someone coming from New England might want to look closely at the Pacific Northwest.
riverc0il
New member
short notice powder days from the boston area (my current location approximately) is two hours to places like cannon (in which i bagged a lot of short notice powder days this season) or 3+ to the big VT names. it's really not hard sacking short notice pow days here and any die hard new england skiers lives for such days regardless of distance.Tony Crocker":f0zga86y said:
i'll be moving to the northeast kingdom of VT putting me 12 minutes from burke, 30 from cannon, 45 from jay, and just over an hour from places like stowe, mrg, and mount washington. granted it's not epic western conditions with the off piste opportunities and longer seasons (hiking at least), but for being able to stay in new england and being close to the action, it's an ideal location. gives me the ability to sack a peak and a run before and after work when ever i feel like it (at least later in the season when the light is out). one experience at a time for now my friends
if i ever look west, i can appreciate it all the more. just not in the cards or considerations at the moment.
When Marc was considering his move west, I sent him the following rank of metro areas purely based upon skiing:
1. SLC
2. Reno
3. Vancouver
4. Seattle
5. Denver
6. Sacramento
7. Portland
8. Spokane
9. Calgary
10. San Francisco, with east of the bay much preferred
11. Albuquerque
12. Las Vegas
13. L.A., with inland areas much preferred to coastal
14. San Diego
15. Phoenix
In the east Montreal is #1 no contest. I would put Montreal between L.A. and San Diego on the above list. Marc slotted Montreal between Albuquerque and Vegas. No other eastern metro area would crack this list IMHO. FYI Arizona Snowbowl is a Baldyish area 2+ hours from Phoenix, average snowfall 250, it had 460 this year.
When snow conditions are good, a Boston-to-Stowe drive could take as long as L.A. to Mammoth. There is NEVER snow on the ground before the last 40 miles of the latter.
With regard to river's comments about powder days, you really have to get to the big VT names (Marc Guido's "brush line") to get tree skiing close to Baldy's league. And if you're willing to day-commute 3+ for that (and it will be more on many powder days), what's the big deal about a 5-hour cruise control drive through the desert to Mammoth?
1. SLC
2. Reno
3. Vancouver
4. Seattle
5. Denver
6. Sacramento
7. Portland
8. Spokane
9. Calgary
10. San Francisco, with east of the bay much preferred
11. Albuquerque
12. Las Vegas
13. L.A., with inland areas much preferred to coastal
14. San Diego
15. Phoenix
In the east Montreal is #1 no contest. I would put Montreal between L.A. and San Diego on the above list. Marc slotted Montreal between Albuquerque and Vegas. No other eastern metro area would crack this list IMHO. FYI Arizona Snowbowl is a Baldyish area 2+ hours from Phoenix, average snowfall 250, it had 460 this year.
When snow conditions are good, a Boston-to-Stowe drive could take as long as L.A. to Mammoth. There is NEVER snow on the ground before the last 40 miles of the latter.
With regard to river's comments about powder days, you really have to get to the big VT names (Marc Guido's "brush line") to get tree skiing close to Baldy's league. And if you're willing to day-commute 3+ for that (and it will be more on many powder days), what's the big deal about a 5-hour cruise control drive through the desert to Mammoth?
riverc0il
New member
yea, i certainly wasn't taking into account quality relative terrain on that post regarding driving distances on a short notice powder day :lol: clearly the terrain out west is going to be superior in many aspects, but in many aspects i am not so sure. a foot of powder is a foot of powder. though powder quality would lilkely be better out west. 3+ hour drives for day trips push my limit which is why i made cannon my home at 2 hours instead of MRG, bush, etc at over 3 and i'm not even gonna talk about day tripping jay or sugarloaf which are both on par for your 5 hour drive to mammoth. just a bit too long for a day trip in my book regardless of terrain. it would be just as quick to drive into logan and hook up with a non-stop to CO. not trying to stick up for the east here, clearly west is best in terms of terrain and i've never even been out there. but a powder day is a powder day, though for me, a powder day is not a 5 hour drive no matter where the snow fell.
awf170":2f79mfsd said:
Never got a speedo, although I had a few close calls with them. Actually, the drive is pretty easy, save for the stretch through Franconia Notch and the Sheffield heights between Lyndonville and Barton:
I-93 all the way to St. Johnsbury.
I-91 north to exit 26 in Orleans.
Then, US 5 :arrow: VT 14 :arrow: VT 100 (southbound) :arrow: VT 101 :arrow: VT 242.