Mt. Shasta, June 17-19, 2011

The extent of above-treeline terrain in these pix is impressive for the U.S. It could be Val d'Isere.

1768586968660.png


1768587017288.png
 
jamesdeluxe said:
The extent of above-treeline terrain in these pix is impressive for the U.S.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

However it also looks incredibly flat at best. Could have been a very interesting place if they put in lifts with some pitch (eg lookers right ridgeline) with those kind of views.
 
If the old Mount Shasta Ski Bowl had stayed afloat, it might have become an iconic USA resort, as the post suggests. The Mount Hood resorts were fortunate to be located near Portland, OR, the state's population center.

California skiing definitely took a long-term hit with the loss of Mt. Shasta Ski Bowl and the abandonment of Disney's Mineral King project. Walt Disney was a Sugar Bowl investor, and for me, it's in the top 3 for North Tahoe. And almost the only resort I will daytrip to - given its snow quantity, terrain quality, and location.

1957 Trail Map for Mt. Shasta Ski Bowl. Note: Some weird lift (tram?) to the looker's right ridge! I am sure there would have been some interesting lift & terrain development over the years.
1768592270392.png
 
Last edited:
ChrisC said:
the abandonment of Disney's Mineral King project
Click to expand...
Who knew? The green circle, blue square, and black diamond symbols used almost universally at today’s North American ski resorts were actually designed by Disney for use at the proposed Mineral King ski resort.

www.peakrankings.com

Why Disney’s Attempt At A Ski Resort Failed—And How It Permanently Changed the Winter Sports World — PeakRankings

The Walt Disney Company had ambitious plans to build out a world-class ski resort in California's Mineral King Valley, but the effort completely failed. We break down why.
www.peakrankings.com www.peakrankings.com
 
Tony Crocker said:
Funny you should mention that. It's on Indy Pass and I'm moderately likely to ski there early in the upcoming February road trip. ChrisC and tseeb have covered the flaws well, #1 being the south exposure. The new area tops out at 7,500 feet, while the old one had a base at 7,800. When Andrew was in Eureka, he skied there once and said it was boring and not worth the drive. The Grey Butte lift did not exist then so the ski area was barely 1,000 vertical. At that scale I'm sure Mt. Ashland is way more interesting. I probably don't make the stop unless Grey Butte is running.
Click to expand...
And Mt Ashland is free is you’re 70 and only 8 miles off I5 (although steep climb and I remember access from one direction was weird) vs longer to Mt Shasta Ski Park especially from Mt Shasta City.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top