Ski Area Reality: Corporatocracy Strikes Again

Tony Crocker":11m3z8qy said:
Geoff":11m3z8qy said:
there are lots of places that have actually been there for centuries and are just as vibrant in the summer as in the winter.
depends upon what the summer vs. winter attractions are. Anyone who has been to Tahoe or Jackson Hole (and from what I hear from our Canadian friends, Banff/Lake Louise) in the summer knows that the age of the resort is a secondary factor at best in determining summer popularity.
+1
 
rfarren":3mw1ppkl said:
Tony Crocker":3mw1ppkl said:
Geoff":3mw1ppkl said:
there are lots of places that have actually been there for centuries and are just as vibrant in the summer as in the winter.
depends upon what the summer vs. winter attractions are. Anyone who has been to Tahoe or Jackson Hole (and from what I hear from our Canadian friends, Banff/Lake Louise) in the summer knows that the age of the resort is a secondary factor at best in determining summer popularity.
+1
Even the maligned Vail has significant summer visitation once the golf courses and mtn biking open up.
 
Marc_C":3vfep6g7 said:
Vail has significant summer visitation once the golf courses and mtn biking open up.

Not to mention Hosting Teva Mtn games, major pro cycling events, etc...
 
rfarren":3uosz5zy said:
Who cares, if you want architecture, move to a big city like NYC, Chicago, London, Berlin etc. If you like skiing, and want a base town then Vail is fine. Unless you're an architecture snob does it matter if a building is imitation? Frankly, if I'm skiing and there is a base town, I would prefer that I don't have to drive, and if that means prefab, so be it.

We've done the authenticity round before, so I will leave that part alone. I am a snow quality then terrain guy first and foremost. I spend as little time off my board as I can when I'm at a ski area, at least from 8 to 4. I've skied and visited Vail or Mammoth before and would love to go back to each regularly.

Disliking the looks of a building or development does not make one an architecture snob, not that that was exactly the context of your reference. I am just a fan of (what I find to be) cool-looking neighborhoods and city centers, and I enjoy that aspect of any place I am visiting, whether it's SF or Leadville.
 
SoCal Rider":1qxi4fko said:
I am just a fan of (what I find to be) cool-looking neighborhoods and city centers, and I enjoy that aspect of any place I am visiting, whether it's SF or Leadville.
I appreciate, as a visitor, Whistler's and Vail's base villages. I can walk around them, so I'm hip to that. It certainly helps when I don't have to drive after boozing up. Dance clubs and shopping helps with the lady, who isn't as passionate about skiing as I.That being said, I go to the mountains for the mountains. I don't think the rest matters too much, and I don't get too hung up on it. I have no unreasonable expectations of soulfulness, or authenticity. Amenities help, but are meaningless without a killer mountains.
 
Geoff":vxextdba said:
My frame of reference is the tumbleweeds blowing down the Killington Access Road in July. I'm comparing it to a place with a lot of summer tourism like Grindelwald or Zermatt. A soulless place like Tignes is just as dead in the summer (now that glacier skiing is gone) as a US resort.
When did that happen (ie. no glacier skiing in Tignes)?
 
Back
Top