What Is An Industrial Ski Resort -- And Is It Necessarily Bad?

[jamesdeluxe]

Based on a search, I appear to be the FTOer who's always had a bee in his proverbial bonnet about industrial ski tourism, going back to my 2008 rant. More than a decade later, Tony brought up my use of the term "industrial ski area" (which I borrowed from the German-speakers on Alpinforum). From there, you can see in the more recent search results that we've been referring to it on and off without being able to agree on what it is.

We started again in the Banff thread with ChrisC providing some examples and counter-examples:

I think the epitome of Industrial Skiing is La Plagne! However, it certainly provides many French people with the opportunity to ski at a somewhat affordable rate. But I can see most of the Tarentaise resorts falling into the category, but at places like Val d'Isere/Tignes, you can go so far away from the masses.

US Industrial Ski Complex:
CO: Summit County, Vail/BC, WP
UT: Mostly Park City. Both Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons retain their charms.
CA: Tahoe does get mobbed, but there are definitely less-developed places: Homewood, Mt. Rose, Sugar Bowl, etc.

In the Alps, there are plenty of large resorts that do not necessarily fit in this bucket, especially outside of France:

• Serre Chevalier
• Monterosa (I almost counted more skiers touring than downhill skiing).
• La Thuile/La Rosierre
• Courmayeur / Skyway
• Chamonix - Aguille du Midi, Les Contamines
• Grimentz-Zinal
• Engelberg
• Andermatt - Gemsstock
• St Moritz - Diavolezza/Lagalb
• Dolomites - Lagazoui

So what is an industrial ski resort to you and does it make you bristle or not? Is it industrial skiing if the resort has many of the obvious hallmarks; however, you can find overlooked terrain sectors with the right knowledge and/or willingness to hike or go on serious traverses for it?

 

[Skieric]

My local mountain Blue Mtn in Ontario would likely be an industrial mountain. After skiing there, anywhere in Colorado seems much better.

 

[MarzNC]

So what is an industrial ski resort to you and does it make you bristle or not? Is it industrial skiing if the resort has many of the obvious hallmarks; however, you can find overlooked terrain sectors with the right knowledge and/or willingness to hike or go on serious traverses for it?

What makes a ski resort "industrial" to me is more related to the amenities and target market than the terrain. In LCC/BCC, I agree that Alta, Solitude, and Brighton don't feel industrial. However, Snowbird has great terrain for advanced/expert skiers but feels industrial in comparison. I prefer Alta over Snowbird. That didn't change as I went from an adventurous intermediate to a solid advanced skier. Probably because I didn't have the ability to start enjoy skiing off-piste until after age 55.

From an intermediate skier's perspective, they are more likely to enjoy a slopeside stay at an industrial resort than a trip to a less developed mountain that has equally fun groomed blues. Say Bridger Bowl compared to Big Sky. Or Wolf Creek compared to Crested Butte.

 

[EMSC]

Is it industrial skiing if the resort has many of the obvious hallmarks; however, you can find overlooked terrain sectors with the right knowledge and/or willingness to hike or go on serious traverses for it?

I think that almost every "industrial" ski area has at least some terrain that is either modestly crowded or less (might be a few exceptions, but not a ton at big mountains). I view the term as more related to the experience than pure infrastructure attributes. Just because I can hike or traverse - eventually - to some great less crowded terrain doesn't mean I didn't have to endure a lot of overcrowded-ness and over-priciness (parking lots, real or fake town walks, multiple lifts and crazy busy connector trails to get up, crowded mid-mtn lodges, etc...). Then it is definitely an Industrial ski area IMHO.

I may still get some great skiing in for portions of the day, but that does not mean I did it at a non-industrial cluster-duck of a ski area.

My 2c

 

[Tony Crocker]

Just because I can hike or traverse - eventually - to some great less crowded terrain doesn't mean I didn't have to endure a lot of overcrowded-ness and over-priciness (parking lots, real or fake town walks, multiple lifts and crazy busy connector trails to get up, crowded mid-mtn lodges, etc...). Then it is definitely an Industrial ski area IMHO.

Yes that is the gray area. If it takes little effort (just start your day early) to beat and stay away from the crowds (the Vail, Whistler, Val d'Isere, St. Anton examples I mentioned before) I'm not annoyed at all and still benefit from the variety and terrain quality of marquee areas.

From an intermediate skier's perspective, they are more likely to enjoy a slopeside stay at an industrial resort

Not so much the level of skier as how much of a hassle driving and parking is for people not staying at the resort. Northstar has been Exhibit A of this for a long time. This is also the big change in LCC/BCC over the past decade. Our experience staying at Iron Blosam is not so different, but the era of the cheap and easy stay in SLC and commute is over, at least on weekends, holidays and big powder days. I recall that finding parking and the lift ticket office at La Plagne in 2022 took quite an effort. Or maybe just one of multiple entry points work well for day trippers but on your first day you might pick the wrong one. I think James and I had varied experiences in that regard at Courchevel.

...equally fun groomed blues. Say Bridger Bowl compared to Big Sky. Or Wolf Creek compared to Crested Butte.

Interesting examples. All of those places have glaring gaps in terrain at the intermediate or advanced intermediate levels.

 

[MarzNC]

Not so much the level of skier as how much of a hassle driving and parking is for people not staying at the resort.

Reason I think slopeside lodging matters more to intermediates, especially those over 50, is that they don't ski full days. Some are morning people willing to head out early when driving to the mountain is required. But they are done skiing after lunch. Or at least need a break of over an hour before they may take a few more runs. Others would rather head out mid-morning, ski for an hour or two, have a leisurely lunch, then ski a bit more in the afternoon. Also far more likely to not want to ski if there is low visibility for part of the day. In short, if they can walk to slopeside lodging, that makes for a much more relaxed trip. Skiing is supposed to be fun, right?

All of those places have glaring gaps in terrain at the intermediate or advanced intermediate levels.

I picked those pairings because the travel logistics are somewhat similar. At least for people who live in the east.

The cautious intermediate women I've traveled with in recent years to ski at Big Sky, Bridger, CB, or Wolf Creek don't need much in terms of terrain. If there are 2-3 blue trails they like, they can be perfectly happy lapping them the entire trip. For that matter, there are days they feel like sticking to greens. Wasn't how I was as an adventurous intermediate. In the 1980s and 1990s I was only skiing a few days at western resorts every few years as a working adult without any parent responsibilities. I could ski any blue groomer based on what I learned during two years on straight skis in middle school. Side slipping, falling leaf, and hockey stops were survival skills I learned early on.

Must say it took a while to understand the mindset of people who learned as adults, really like skiing, are willing to pay to fly to ski at a destination resort, but are very limited in what trails they are willing to try. One reason is that they are afraid of taking a wrong turn when skiing without someone who is a patient better skier and/or knows the mountain well. Gained a bit more insight during the season I had finished knee rehab just before ski season started and was being a bit more cautious.