revelstoke

[jon]

Tony and others,
What do you think the terrain and snow quality/quantity will be like at the reported soon to be expanding Revelstoke ski area ?

(They say they get 40-60 ft snow annually, and will have over 6000 vertical.)The terrain in some of the snow cat videos looks relatively mellow. But I'm not sure if that's because that is the terrain the cat operation skis/takes videos of, or if that is what much of the mountain is.

Here's a link to the resort.

http://www.discoverrevelstoke.com/

Any comments abut other proposed BC areas?
(eg Jumbo Glacier Resort, Canoe Mountain Resort, Cayoosh Ski Resort, Garibaldi at Squamish Resort and Mount Baldy) Specifically quality of terrain, quality /quantity of snow, "coolness " of town, likelyhood of the ski area being developed.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Some of us discussed this awhile back: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... php?t=1224

I would much more favor the Jumbo development. In addition, Jumbo is just up the road from an existing ski area/base development at Panorama. Revelstoke is very remote, 2+ hours from nearest commercial airports at Kelowna or Kamloops. There are several cat and heli operations close to Revelstoke, but no other resorts.

I googled the other proposals. Cayoosh is between Whistler and Kamloops at fairly high elevation but appears to have much First Nations opposition.

Canoe is in Valemount, which I drove through a month ago between Jasper and Blue River. It's just north of Mike Wiegele's permit area and also has better exposure than the Revelstoke proposal. Valemount is even more remote than Revelstoke, though the 3+ hour drive from Kamloops is on a fast road.

 

[Admin]

It's my understanding that there's a huge difference in snowfall between the upper and lower elevations at Revelstoke. I'd suspect that the lower reaches will be rather snowmaking-dependent.

I'd love to see Jumbo built.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'd suspect that the lower reaches will be rather snowmaking-dependent.

And even more grooming dependent with the south exposure.

 

[jon]

Thanks for the info and past links.
Any updates re Jubo Glacier ? When looking on the net, I didn't see any new info.

 

[Patrick]

I'd suspect that the lower reaches will be rather snowmaking-dependent.

I don't have any numbers, but I do remember my friend telling at the time he lived there that it snowed a fair amount in town. Mind you that he came from Rossland and Whistler prior to his moved to Revelstoke.

I'd love to see Jumbo built.

I'm on the opposite side of the debate on this one.

 

[ChrisC]

Revelstoke
Looking at the Master Plan http://www.discoverrevelstoke.com/pdf/r ... erplan.pdf, it appears the new resort is mostly trail skiing. Big open terrain looks minimal - not a Whistler, more like a Steamboat/Snowmass. Who would shell out the time and money to get Revelstoke to do trail skiing? Frankly, it does not even look as interesting as Kicking Horse.


Jumbo.
RK Heli flies in this area. I do not know their relationship with the land, but the terrain & snow is the real deal. A 2" Panorama snowfall translated to 12" up in the Jumbo area.

From a skiers' perspective, I would rather see Jumbo developed. I have no idea what the environmental issues are - but glaciers/alpine terrain generally are more fragile.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I was unimpressed with MacKenzie's terrain when I snowcat skied there in 1999. In Canada the trees are more dense on south slopes and more open when north facing. The cat operation had access to about 1,800 vertical on the north side, which I did not see. I have heard that area is better, and it looks like a couple more years after opening before it will be lift accessible.

RK Heli is leading the opposition to Jumbo. The proposed development is about 10% of their terrain, but it's been their most commonly used area for a decade or so, and where I skied in 1999. The proponents allege that RK began concentrating their skiing in this Jumbo/Farnham Glacier area when the Jumbo development proposal was first raised. Intrawest, which owns Panorama, is not opposed. Jumbo's skiing will overshadow Panorama's, but my guess is that Intrawest assumes that many of the additional skiers attracted to the area will stay at Panorama.

 

[Patrick]

Revelstoke
Who would shell out the time and money to get Revelstoke to do trail skiing? Frankly, it does not even look as interesting as Kicking Horse.

That could be an issue.

Jumbo.
RK Heli flies in this area. I do not know their relationship with the land, but the terrain & snow is the real deal. A 2" Panorama snowfall translated to 12" up in the Jumbo area.

From a skiers' perspective, I would rather see Jumbo developed. I have no idea what the environmental issues are - but glaciers/alpine terrain generally are more fragile.

Besides the environmental issue and the greater opposition to the Jumbo project, there is also the issue of the "need" for it. If it is build and what cost? How many skiers will go and where will they be coming from? Why ski areas will lose skiers? They are a few ski areas in interior BC, but I wouldn't say that they are making a killing? Jumbo and/or Revelstoke would be two extra areas fighting in a soon to be shrinking piece of the pie. Add the environmental impact of Jumbo and that is the reason why I'm against.

Here are two discussions from the TGR forums earlier this year and you'll see some more of the local favour in the debate.

Jumbo Resort Discussion

Revelstoke Mountain Resort discussion

 

[Patrick]

Intrawest, which owns Panorama, is not opposed. Jumbo's skiing will overshadow Panorama's, but my guess is that Intrawest assumes that many of the additional skiers attracted to the area will stay at Panorama.

This would makes sense for Panorama, everything that see a concentration of skiers in the area, like the 3 Banff areas. However I'm not sure how others that are further away like Kicking, Fernie, the new area in Revelstoke or Red would feel about it.

 

[ChrisC]

Besides the environmental issue and the greater opposition to the Jumbo project, there is also the issue of the "need" for it. If it is build and what cost? How many skiers will go and where will they be coming from? Why ski areas will lose skiers? They are a few ski areas in interior BC, but I wouldn't say that they are making a killing? Jumbo and/or Revelstoke would be two extra areas fighting in a soon to be shrinking piece of the pie. Add the environmental impact of Jumbo and that is the reason why I'm against.

Until the late 90s, Fernie & Westcastle were just little bumps on the BC/Alberta border. Fernie a depressed town and Westcastle in danger of closing - locals had to buy it out.

With massive expansions of both resorts (100%+ in size), they are both economically successful. The region is more successful. Westcastle -> Castle and Fernie. Add in Island Lake into the reputation. It's a good ski region nowhere near anyplace.

Add into an expansion of the Castlegar airport. Already done.

Why not an interior BC ski region stretching from Panorama/Jumbo to Fernie/Castle? With some heli/snowcat operations to boot. Promoted correctly - super interesting.

I wanted to do a larger study while a student, but while skier levels have stayed stagnant - a lot of the c-list, d-list and f-list mountains have closed - the a-list mountains have had good growth during this stagnation in skier days. Capital expenditure alone does not give growth - but terrain combined with real estate expansion does.

How many people still search the Internet with Altavista, Lycos, Excite, Galaxy, Go anymore? Things change, winners emerge, you go on.

And while we are at it, Mad River is Deer Valley from 1950-60. Mismanaged. Betsy Pratt alone changed how that one worked out. My hope a similar problem happens at the Yellowston Club (it will!) and soon Yellowstone-Big Sky-Moonlight become one mountain - largest in US.

.

 

[Patrick]

How many people still search the Internet with Altavista, Lycos, Excite, Galaxy, Go anymore? Things change, winners emerge, you go on.

That's all fine and dandy when companies fall and new one emerges, however when this happening with ski areas and an old area dies and after a new area is built, you're wasting and affecting more land and a huge habitats.

I have less an issue with expansions of a ski areas like Castle, Fernie, Whitetooth/Kicking or Mackenzie/Revelstoke than with the creation of a brand new ski area.

 

[Tony Crocker]

We debated Jumbo a while back: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... c.php?t=78 .

The TGR people who had been with CAT Powder on Mt. MacKenzie were more enthusiastic than I about Revelstoke. I can tell you that the first phase gondola will not service great skiing, nearly all south facing cut trails. Once they access the top of the mountain it should be good. But I've been driving around interior B.C. for a decade and Revelstoke is about as remote as it gets.

It was obvious that the Revelstoke developer would buy out CAT Powder. One of the link mentioned that they also bought Selkirk-Tangiers Heliskiing, and will base that at the new resort. I had a day with them the same week I had 2 with CAT Powder, very deep powder as I recall.

I'm not necessarily opposed to Revelstoke. But for those who make economic arguments related to skier demand, those arguments favor Jumbo IMHO due to location and more unique product.

 

[Patrick]

We debated Jumbo a while back: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... c.php?t=78 ..

This might become the new Killington closing date conversation. :wink:

The TGR people who had been with CAT Powder on Mt. MacKenzie were more enthusiastic than I about Revelstoke...

My ex-resident of Revelstoke skier friend was also very enthusiastic about the project....10 years ago. :lol:

But I've been driving around interior B.C. for a decade and Revelstoke is about as remote as it gets.

No argument on my part here.

I'm not necessarily opposed to Revelstoke. But for those who make economic arguments related to skier demand, those arguments favor Jumbo IMHO due to location and more unique product.

I agree that for the economic argument of THE project, Jumbo would probably make more sense. However as I mentioned about in this discussion as well as the old one, I'm less favourable into the creation of brand new areas than extending existing ones.

Here is a fictionl Vermont scenario. Some developper proposes the creation of a massive ski area on Camel's Hump (I've dreamed this when I was a young and foolish 18 yr old :lol: ), a ski area better than Killington in term of terrain and challenge. The new ski area then become very successfull, regardless of the environmental impact, but a few years down the road, Killington, Stowe or Sugarbush shuts down are forced to close due to the competition and declining numbers. As ski area numbers, it's just a trade from one place to another, however the environment doesn't regain what it lost. An abandonned Kmart (or elsewhere) wouldn't equal a lost Camel's Hump peak and forest.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Interior B.C. is underutilized now relative to the quality of the skiing. More resorts are likely to increase overall visits from outside the region. Otherwise Intrawest would oppose Jumbo, presuming it would kill Panorama.

Jumbo would be like a piece of the French Alps in Canada. Patrick should be in favor of that :wink:. The unique nature of its terrain for North America is what should make dedicated skiers excited. Unlike other high alpine mountains in B.C. Panorama's existing facilities and road reduce the amount of base infrastructure that would need to be built at Jumbo.

The vast area from Nelson north to Valemount is also revered by powderhounds for its close to Alta-like snowfall and impressive natural tree skiing. But at the moment you have to pay up for cat or heliskiing or earn your turns for most of it. Revelstoke would be the only lift service in this climate zone other than backcountry-oriented Whitewater. I'm still not sure whether the 2+ hour access from Kelowna and Kamloops is convenient enough to attract enough visitors. I don't think that much is going to come from the tough 5 hour Calgary drive, which passes by Banff, Lake Louise and Kicking Horse.

 

[Patrick]

More resorts are likely to increase overall visits from outside the region. Otherwise Intrawest would oppose Jumbo, presuming it would kill Panorama.

Yes, it would bring people to the immediate area. Panorama on it's own isn't a great drawing card. Concentration of businesses of a same type is generally always good (Geography Economic Location Theories 101).

What about the others like Kicking, Red and company. The positive effect on them would be less than certain.

Interior B.C. is underutilized now relative to the quality of the skiing.

Terrain is underutilized based on population? I wouldn't say so.

Underutilized terrain without a population factored in? Underutilized for skiing maybe, but not if you add it up with Forestry, Mining, etc.

The unique nature of its terrain for North America is what should make dedicated skiers excited.

Where isn't going to stop? Overall skier demand is expected to nosedive in a few years down the road. Plus I can quickly think of a few new ski areas in BC (plus Revelstoke) that are in some type of planning phase right now.

Revelstoke, Jumbo, something near Mt Robson, one or two projects north of Whistler near Pemberton. Those are the one that I heard of, how many others? Glacier à la Jumbo plan isn't the only one, I believe there is/was also a plan in the Coastal Mountain north of Whistler.

Unlike other high alpine mountains in B.C. Panorama's existing facilities and road reduce the amount of base infrastructure that would need to be built at Jumbo.

There would still need to built stuff in a highly sensitive area, it's not like their plan is only to built lifts. It would include lodging, roads, sewars...:roll:

I'm still not sure whether the 2+ hour access from Kelowna and Kamloops is convenient enough to attract enough visitors. I don't think that much is going to come from the tough 5 hour Calgary drive, which passes by Banff, Lake Louise and Kicking Horse.

Agree.

 

[ChrisC]

Jumbo would be like a piece of the French Alps in Canada. Patrick should be in favor of that :wink:. The unique nature of its terrain for North America is what should make dedicated skiers excited.

Anyone who can bring Alps skiing to the US - a hero.

And we should try...

 

[Tony Crocker]

What about the others like Kicking, Red and company?

Red is 7 hours away. That's like saying building a new area in Utah will impact Colorado. I believe more vacationers will be drawn to the "Calgary loop" areas in general.

Terrain is underutilized based on population? I wouldn't say so.

Colorado's skier visits are far beyond what the local population will support. If it's that good, which Jumbo is, people will come. Some of them will try the other areas, and word-of-mouth/press will take it from there.

Overall skier demand is expected to nosedive in a few years down the road.

I have read differently. After 2 years of flat skier visits the U.S. total is gradually increasing now. Echo boomers are adding to growth faster than the original boomers are leaving. And remember that overall U.S. population is growing, and not static like most of the developed countries. While the above may not be true within Canada, it still seems to me that western Canada should not have that much trouble drawing skiers from south of the border given the quality of the product. And with only 6% of interior B.C. skiers being Americans now, even modest growth in U.S. visitors should be enough.

I agree in principle with the Liberal B.C. government. They should review these proposals for environmental impact. For example, base facilities at Jumbo may need to fit in a small footprint even if the ski terrain is as big as Whistler. If a project meets those requirements the decision to build or not should be based upon market economics. The investors betting their own $ are best qualified to make the latter call. Look what this policy has done for cat and heli skiing over the past decade. I've been a personal beneficiary of this, but from what I read here on FTO, there are many more skiers who can't afford cat/heli but would utilize a place like Jumbo.

Should all of these proposals get built? Probably not, but from both skier and economic perspective Jumbo looks like the best of the lot to me.

I've read Downhill Slide and followed the recent history of ski resort development. No question there were haphazard cases and often environmental issues were neglected during the boom era of the 50's and 60's. But since 1980 the pendulum has swung too far the other way, at least in the U.S.

 

[ChrisC]

I've read Downhill Slide and followed the recent history of ski resort development. No question there were haphazard cases and often environmental issues were neglected during the boom era of the 50's and 60's. But since 1980 the pendulum has swung too far the other way, at least in the U.S.

Reading a Telluride local's book 'Downhill Slide' - Hal - is like reading Anne Coulter for a history of Democratic Party.

Hal/author...He's a bitter ex-renter in Telluride...who could have bought in at 200k in the 90s on Mainstreet when things are selling for 1.5M in 2000s. So you write a book. When you spent too much money on drinks -- at least he is smart enough to get a publisher -- but never a mortgage. Too bad Hal. Too bad.

My brother bought, Hal could have too. So he bitches - weirdly so. He made a bad economic decision. I hate Hal and am not allowed to speak to him. He's awful.

His book is crap.

(if anyone wants to read a book - without an agenda - try Powder Burn...a beautiful story about Vail from more viewpoints than I thin existed.)

 

[Patrick]

Red is 7 hours away. That's like saying building a new area in Utah will impact Colorado. I believe more vacationers will be drawn to the "Calgary loop" areas in general.

However I believe that most skiers at these ski areas aren't the ski safari looping fans that we are. They tend to go to one place and stay the entire week, so building a place combo like Jumbo/Panorama will probably make the other BC interior options less attractive.

A good example, a collegue at work (also races Masters + season pass at Tremblant) which asked me where he should go between Kick and Fernie for an entire week, I told him BOTH. He prefered opting just for one (and he's younger than I am).

I have read differently. After 2 years of flat skier visits the U.S. total is gradually increasing now. Echo boomers are adding to growth faster than the original boomers are leaving. And remember that overall U.S. population is growing, and not static like most of the developed countries. While the above may not be true within Canada, it still seems to me that western Canada should not have that much trouble drawing skiers from south of the border given the quality of the product. And with only 6% of interior B.C. skiers being Americans now, even modest growth in U.S. visitors should be enough.

Yes, but once the boomers will be leaving for good :? , those numbers should start falling. The increase in numbers should be temporary and effect of the Echos and original boomers still active at the same time.

Yes, Canada's demographic situation is slightly different than the US as population growth is mainly due to immigration which as the US growth is also based on births (only one in the Western countries). The problem with this growth is:

Immigration: Most of the immigration in Canada (and I presumed in the US) is from non-skiing countries where skiing is an abstract and odd sport. Immigration in the 20th century was mainly European where skiing wasn't seen as a strange sport. There is a lack of skiing culture in this new population and the ski industry hasen't been able to attract them in sufficient numbers into the sport.

Births: (although I'm not a specialist of US demography). In Canada, and I suspect in the US, the larger families aren't generally from middle/upper class multi-generation Canadian (and American?) citizens. First generation citizen or immigrants tend to have more children, however like I mentioned above, these are less likely to be skiers/boarders.

My brother bought, Hal could have too. So he bitches - weirdly so. He made a bad economic decision. I hate Hal and am not allowed to speak to him. He's awful.

Regardless if he bought in or not, that besides the point. Personnally, I wouldn't have wanted to buy in Whistler in the late 80s (or Tremblant in the early 90s) and having it turned into a circus a few years later. Regardless of the money I would make, the important thing is the loving the place where we live and ski.

His book is crap.

I share many of his opinion on many points before reading his book. However he wrote a book before I did. :lol: And of course, my perspective and experience is more regionally (East and some of Western Canada) than his. :?