Park City Mountain and Canyons Resort, UT 11/23/12
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Evren
New member
Snowbird is a terrible choice overall. I've never seen as self-righteous a band of people, not in Utah. Skiing there reminds me of shopping at Whole Foods in Chicago, where every "Excuse me!" was tinged with a "Why are you standing between me and my favorite arugula?" It is not Utah. It also has horrible architecture, crowded to get to whenever there is decent snow, the people in the Tram stink, cut in line, the food is overpriced... need I say more? Yes, I am itching for a fight.
I been in a few :lol: discussions on Alta vs. Snowbird over the years, and there are many aspects to that and my thinking has evolved over the past few years. But vs. the Park City group with regard to the categories that matter (snow and terrain), there's no contest. The Park City resorts are third-rate within their own state. The second tier areas are Brighton/Solitude for snow and Snowbasin for terrain. Sure there's fine dining in Park City, but I can stay home and get as much of that as I want.Evren":btifkyfe said:
Evren
New member
Thank you, Tony, for biting. For me, skiing is a childhood fantasy come to life; bit of Norman Rockwell, bit of Grandma Moses. Wonder and amazement and good tidings for all. It is only in that context that stats come to play a role. Food is not Zagat ratings or quantity but a warm hearth. Snowbasin delivers. So does Sundance, actually, despite its acreage. Deer Valley and Canyons, even, if you're willing to overlook. Alta, definitely. Solitude, maybe. Snowbird does not. It is a cold, unwelcoming place. With respect, put that in your database and smoke it 
Marc_C
Active member
Referenced in Admin's report of today at Alta was the blogger behind braveskimom.com, so I went and took a look at her site. Here's an entry that suggests that Tony's metrics for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rate ski area are incredibly biased in a very narrow directioin. In short, this is a woman who places PCMR above every other resort in the state.Tony Crocker":17gw9lcp said:
http://braveskimom.com/why-our-family-loves-to-ski-park-city-mountain-resort-utah
There's nothing wrong with anyone having their own opinions, likes, dislikes, and preferences, but to just blatantly state that "The Park City resorts are third-rate within their own state" is just plain BS.
To say nothing of annoying.
If I may,
The architecture at Snowbird, while not as charming as a Swiss village, is pretty well thought out. The idea was to minimize the footprint/ the alternative would have been a landscape of tightly clustered low slung single family homes and townhouses completely filling the valley (sort of reminds one of Salt Lake City). Look at the color of the concrete on the Cliff - it matches the Hellgate cliffs. Finally, the grassy rooftops restore to the earth that land which was taken from it.
Secondly, the Park City ski areas are quite obviously third rate despite the fact that Tony Crocker lives in LA. Blah terrain, less snow, inferior snow preservation, scrub oak vistas, McMansions lining runs built only so that the resorts can sell more real estate...
Should I go on?
The architecture at Snowbird, while not as charming as a Swiss village, is pretty well thought out. The idea was to minimize the footprint/ the alternative would have been a landscape of tightly clustered low slung single family homes and townhouses completely filling the valley (sort of reminds one of Salt Lake City). Look at the color of the concrete on the Cliff - it matches the Hellgate cliffs. Finally, the grassy rooftops restore to the earth that land which was taken from it.
Secondly, the Park City ski areas are quite obviously third rate despite the fact that Tony Crocker lives in LA. Blah terrain, less snow, inferior snow preservation, scrub oak vistas, McMansions lining runs built only so that the resorts can sell more real estate...
Should I go on?
Evren
New member
Skrad, you stinker!
I hate scrub oak as much as the next guy but consider: it offers the challenge of tree skiing when spaced right, without the permanent penalty. The Colony and Deer Valley's housing, while despicable from a social-equity angle... are NOT McMansions. They are mansions, proper. And skiing the pistes among them has a Kinkade-effect (damn) that can be charming. Not for the entire day, to be sure. But here-and-there.
Ah, yes, snow. On that you've got me creamed.
I hate scrub oak as much as the next guy but consider: it offers the challenge of tree skiing when spaced right, without the permanent penalty. The Colony and Deer Valley's housing, while despicable from a social-equity angle... are NOT McMansions. They are mansions, proper. And skiing the pistes among them has a Kinkade-effect (damn) that can be charming. Not for the entire day, to be sure. But here-and-there.
Ah, yes, snow. On that you've got me creamed.
Evren
New member
Snow and terrain. Allow me to elaborate. I can ski certain areas at Deer Valley, where all I see are my own tracks, run after run. Big fish in a small pond. There is a dearth of sustained pitch in the side-country, to be sure (though their double-blue and blacks are plenty long). Daly Chutes, Ontario Bowl, Mayflower, Triangle Trees, Centennial Trees, certain lines on Little Baldy, even. Anything off of Flathead in Sundance, combined with a Far-East run from Arrowhead. And much of Jean Paul, Strawberry, Middle-bowl, Allen Tram at Snowbasin. 9990, lines off of Tombstone at Canyons. I'll let someone else speak for PCMR (personally, hate it).
Snowfall, it is what it is. But given the number of people chasing it, I'd take 6 inches in the Wasatch-back over 12 in the Cottonwoods. Admin & crew seem to have a magic touch. I don't. Neither do 98% of visitors.
Snowfall, it is what it is. But given the number of people chasing it, I'd take 6 inches in the Wasatch-back over 12 in the Cottonwoods. Admin & crew seem to have a magic touch. I don't. Neither do 98% of visitors.
Marc_C
Active member
For those like Tony who harp on the snowfall difference between the Park City group and the Cottonwoods - sure, early and late season, things are distinctly different on the Wasatch back. But during the core of the season, is skiing on a 130" base that distinctly different than skiing on "only" an 80" base? With skis upward of 115mm at the waist, is 36" of new significantly different than skiing "only" 24" of new? While there are differences in snow brought by elevation, aspect, and moisture stolen by the Cottonwoods (hence affecting quantity from any given storm, except those that favor the Back), the overall quality of the skiing for visitors is likely not as different as Tony et al would suggest.Evren":1gvx48j3 said:
Competition for fresh? Other than at DV, it can be just as rabid as in the Cottonwoods. In fact the spread out nature of PCMR and the Canyons* allows things to remain untouched for longer. Plus, they have those great open Aspen glades that are severely lacking in the Cottonwoods.
True, but a lot of people have the misconception the the big, sustained steeps of, say, Snowbird are significantly longer - this really isn't the case. Look at the Upper Cirque, one of the marquee bits of terrain at Snowbird. Steep? Hell yes. Long? Um, not as much as some think, with Great Scott topping out at around 800'-900' vertical of sustained pitch on a mountain with 3K' vertical. Alta's most well-known lines are less than 1K' - often much less - as well.Evren":1gvx48j3 said:
Curious as to why. You may have mentioned in other posts, but I don't recall the reasons.Evren":1gvx48j3 said:
This is simply not true, but like any area, including those in the Back, it takes more than an occasional day now and then to learn the layout and, more importantly, the traffic patterns, the timing and order of the rope drops, and what gets neglected. I can't count the number of times I've had multiple untracked runs on West Rustler while the hordes are hammering the T to get out to totally chewed up Thirds, High Rustler and, Eagle's Nest. It's not like that's a big secret, since you can see all of West Russ from the lift.Evren":1gvx48j3 said:
*: I still can't manage to write just "Canyons" instead of "the Canyons". It's just such an awkward name.
"Where are you going on your ski trip?"
"We're going to Canyons!"
Obviously a sucky decision made when the board room was drunk.
No, but the snowfall difference translates to 22% of days at Alta with 6+ inches new and 8% with 12+ vs. 13% with 6+ and 3% with 12+ at Park City. It's really worse than that because Alta measures 1,000 feet above its base and Park City measures 2,000+ above its. Base areas at the Park City group get 150 inches with less than 6% of days with 6+ inches.MarcC":2o1ayz2z said:
My "third rate" comment related specifically to snow and terrain and I stand by it. For those who want the complete resort experience, no argument that Park City is Utah's only competitor to Colorado.
First tier ski areas: You can build your house and ski the rest of your life (assuming that you aren't all that young and that global warming doesn't happen as fast as the worst case scenarios). Really just a handful: Alta/Snowbird, Jackson, Whistler/Blackcomb.
Second tier ski area: You can spend a season happily (assuming you hit a good season). Taos, CB, Aspen areas, Squaw/Alpine, Crystal.
Third tier ski areas: Maybe a single vacation worth of the goods. All of the PC areas combined, most Colorado megaresorts.
I will concede that they are mansions, not McMansions. Mansions inhabited by the people in the audience when Mitt Romney made the "47%" comment.
Second tier ski area: You can spend a season happily (assuming you hit a good season). Taos, CB, Aspen areas, Squaw/Alpine, Crystal.
Third tier ski areas: Maybe a single vacation worth of the goods. All of the PC areas combined, most Colorado megaresorts.
I will concede that they are mansions, not McMansions. Mansions inhabited by the people in the audience when Mitt Romney made the "47%" comment.
Skrad's definition of tiers is broad based and perhaps worthy of another thread. "Build your house" sort of implies living there full time or at least a lot of the time. Thus a long ski season and/or attractive off-season activities in the area become important factors IMHO. Those aspects bump Tahoe, Bend, Mammoth, Aspen, Vail up a notch. Jackson's optimal ski season is rather short but there are few if any more impressive mountain environments to spend the summer, so I agree on first tier there.
Evren
New member
Marc, I hate PCMR for all the reasons people hate Wasatch-back overall. And then some. Rounded hills vs real mountains, crowds, a mall atmosphere. In more detail: wide avenues like Communist Eastern-European capitals. No charm, an overgrown Eastern-US resort. Yes, overpriced and underwhelming food; on that I am a broken record. Canyons and Deer Valley -- you can make your own, with effort. PCMR, I never did. Despite trying numerous times. But all of this is very subjective. And thank god for that or we'd all be competing for the same runs!
Evren
New member
...forgot about all the run-outs at PCMR! That's the number one frustration with the place, for me. Many of the fast lifts go across the terrain, instead of up. Some pistes have a run-in and then a run-out with scant actual skiing in the middle. Not so at DV or Canyons. I wonder if there is enough of a difference in geography, the three being so close by. Maybe it was just built wrong?
Evren
New member
Do the three areas have appreciably different contours or is it just how the runs and lifts were put in at PCMR, that caused all the perceived "flatness". Take something like McConkey's where half of the lift you are not really gaining elevation. And the reverse, on the way down.