jamesdeluxe
Administrator
Unless you?re a BC hardcore who avoids lifts, human intervention in the mountains for skiers is a given, whether it?s a t-bar, a chair, a mid-mountain lodge, or a base village. When you?re thinking about places to ski and/or live, in addition to the usual quantifiable criteria that we?re always going on about -- acreage, vertical, steepness, snow conditions, skier density, etc. -- how many of you consider aesthetics to be a major factor in your decision? By that, I guess I mean the vibe, personality, or sense of place that people have created in a town or ski area -- and whether it feels authentic and organic or phony and forced.
I got thinking about this during my trip last week to northern Vermont. Whenever I?m in VT, I really like the whole New England vibe that surrounds the ski areas up there. In addition to genuine East Coast terrain at places like MRG, Jay, Sugarbush, Stowe, and Smuggs, you have a location that was a real place before a ski area was put in, regional architecture, authentic farming culture, no chain restaurants, atmospheric lodging, etc. The Eastern Townships in Quebec are especially interesting in that they mix northeastern skiing with French-Canadian culture and New England building styles. There are also cool state-owned places like Whiteface, Gore, Belleayre, and Cannon with zero base development, and nothing within eyeshot but nice scenery.
The East does have its eyesores and destination skier hotspots -- Killington, Okemo, Mount Snow, and Tremblant come to mind. -- but to me, they?re in the minority.
Western U.S.
IMO, things are hit or miss out west. For me, Northern New Mexico (Taos, Santa Fe, Pajarito) is the best example of a western region that mixes skiing and local culture similar to the way New England does. Haven?t been back in 20 years, but I remember Crested Butte and Telluride as being interesting places. Lake Louise and Sunshine, with their locations in a highly regulated national park (a very small mid-mountain village at SSV and zilch at LL), are really beautiful too.
To look at a different case, as great as the whole SLC experience can be snow- and terrain-wise -- and it is convenient to have a decent-sized ?city? so close to that much great skiing with inexpensive hotels, easy access, and so on -- the tradeoff is that your headquarters is basically a sprawling suburban metro area (unless you stay on-mountain) or a tourist town with lots of condos and trophy homes (Park City). Haven?t been to Powder Mountain yet, but Sundance was my aesthetic favorite -- the one ski area that actually made me feel like I was in Utah. A lowkey base structure and very cool summit lodge (with environmentally friendly toilets, natch), and even though there are homes and condos, they don?t assault your eyes.
Austria
I can?t speak for Italy, Switzerland or France (which is supposed to have the highest percentage of godawful ski architecture anywhere) as I?ve never skied in those countries, but I can tell you that Austria is amazing in the way it combines skiing with great atmosphere. If you?ve never been, you really have to check it out. Cute villages that have been there for centuries, on-mountain cow barns that have been converted into cafes, bars, and restaurants, traveling to different villages on skis, etc. Even a week in the Kitzbühel Alps -- a region serious skiers might avoid because it?s considered the Austrian equivalent of the East Coast due to lower elevation -- was absolutely worth the trip.
A year ago in Lech, I ran into these Vermont dirtbags (their description, not mine) who came to the Arlberg with a bunch of ?MRG: Ski It If You Can? stickers that they were going to plaster on lift towers. But once they got to the ?Vatican of the Ski World,? as they called it, they shelved the idea, realizing that it would be the ultimate sacrilege? similar to someone coming to Vermont and bombing the single chair with Deer Valley stickers.
I don?t want to catalogue every ski area and give it a grade on atmospherics, but I?m curious to know where people stand on this issue, or if it?s even an issue. Can you go to a place, which, despite its positive sides, might have visually unappealing manmade elements -- for example: Vail (faux Tirol), Snowbird (feels like 1970s France), Deer Valley (parts of it are like skiing through a high-end subdivision), or Les Ménuires (known among Brits as ?Les Manures?) -- and block out stimuli you don?t like and concentrate on the skiing?
I?ve managed to do it to a certain extent, but it isn?t the same feeling as when the aesthetics part clicks too. Of course, it?s all subjective -- who?s to say what?s authentic? -- and everything?s in the eye of the beholder. The fact that all of the resorts above are highly successful may indicate that aesthetics are irrelevant or not overly important to many people.
I got thinking about this during my trip last week to northern Vermont. Whenever I?m in VT, I really like the whole New England vibe that surrounds the ski areas up there. In addition to genuine East Coast terrain at places like MRG, Jay, Sugarbush, Stowe, and Smuggs, you have a location that was a real place before a ski area was put in, regional architecture, authentic farming culture, no chain restaurants, atmospheric lodging, etc. The Eastern Townships in Quebec are especially interesting in that they mix northeastern skiing with French-Canadian culture and New England building styles. There are also cool state-owned places like Whiteface, Gore, Belleayre, and Cannon with zero base development, and nothing within eyeshot but nice scenery.
The East does have its eyesores and destination skier hotspots -- Killington, Okemo, Mount Snow, and Tremblant come to mind. -- but to me, they?re in the minority.
Western U.S.
IMO, things are hit or miss out west. For me, Northern New Mexico (Taos, Santa Fe, Pajarito) is the best example of a western region that mixes skiing and local culture similar to the way New England does. Haven?t been back in 20 years, but I remember Crested Butte and Telluride as being interesting places. Lake Louise and Sunshine, with their locations in a highly regulated national park (a very small mid-mountain village at SSV and zilch at LL), are really beautiful too.
To look at a different case, as great as the whole SLC experience can be snow- and terrain-wise -- and it is convenient to have a decent-sized ?city? so close to that much great skiing with inexpensive hotels, easy access, and so on -- the tradeoff is that your headquarters is basically a sprawling suburban metro area (unless you stay on-mountain) or a tourist town with lots of condos and trophy homes (Park City). Haven?t been to Powder Mountain yet, but Sundance was my aesthetic favorite -- the one ski area that actually made me feel like I was in Utah. A lowkey base structure and very cool summit lodge (with environmentally friendly toilets, natch), and even though there are homes and condos, they don?t assault your eyes.
Austria
I can?t speak for Italy, Switzerland or France (which is supposed to have the highest percentage of godawful ski architecture anywhere) as I?ve never skied in those countries, but I can tell you that Austria is amazing in the way it combines skiing with great atmosphere. If you?ve never been, you really have to check it out. Cute villages that have been there for centuries, on-mountain cow barns that have been converted into cafes, bars, and restaurants, traveling to different villages on skis, etc. Even a week in the Kitzbühel Alps -- a region serious skiers might avoid because it?s considered the Austrian equivalent of the East Coast due to lower elevation -- was absolutely worth the trip.
A year ago in Lech, I ran into these Vermont dirtbags (their description, not mine) who came to the Arlberg with a bunch of ?MRG: Ski It If You Can? stickers that they were going to plaster on lift towers. But once they got to the ?Vatican of the Ski World,? as they called it, they shelved the idea, realizing that it would be the ultimate sacrilege? similar to someone coming to Vermont and bombing the single chair with Deer Valley stickers.
I don?t want to catalogue every ski area and give it a grade on atmospherics, but I?m curious to know where people stand on this issue, or if it?s even an issue. Can you go to a place, which, despite its positive sides, might have visually unappealing manmade elements -- for example: Vail (faux Tirol), Snowbird (feels like 1970s France), Deer Valley (parts of it are like skiing through a high-end subdivision), or Les Ménuires (known among Brits as ?Les Manures?) -- and block out stimuli you don?t like and concentrate on the skiing?
I?ve managed to do it to a certain extent, but it isn?t the same feeling as when the aesthetics part clicks too. Of course, it?s all subjective -- who?s to say what?s authentic? -- and everything?s in the eye of the beholder. The fact that all of the resorts above are highly successful may indicate that aesthetics are irrelevant or not overly important to many people.