Where to live?

[Admin]

Admin what are there for colleges in the SLC area because im in 10th grade right now and looking for a college and want one in ski country and nothing is better then SLC

University of Utah
Brigham Young University
Westminster College
Utah Valley State College
Weber State University

Realize that there are some cultural idiosyncrasies associated with a couple of those if you're not a member of the LDS church.

obviously better than i89 to route 100 which i utilized my last time to jay.

Oh, man...talk about the slow boat!

 

[Tony Crocker]

I believe you guys are proving my point as these drives to quality eastern mountains (and that's Baldy quality, not Mammoth quality) creep past the 3 hour mark (more when the snow is best).

And you haven't even addressed the issue of Mammoth having 5 1/2 months (median, it's going to be 8 months this year) of quality skiing instead of less than 3. The "less than 3" is based upon my tracking New England snow reports since 1996-97. I rate the 2000-01 New England counterpart of this year in the Sierra at 4 1/2 months.

 

[Admin]

I believe you guys are proving my point as these drives to quality eastern mountains (and that's Baldy quality, not Mammoth quality) creep past the 3 hour mark (more when the snow is best).

That's where I have to disagree with you. When a "normal" Vermont winter is Baldy at it's best, I have a hard time drawing the comparison.

And you haven't even addressed the issue of Mammoth having 5 1/2 months (median, it's going to be 8 months this year) of quality skiing instead of less than 3.

Vermont is at its best mid-December through mid-April in a typical year -- that's 4. Sure, 1 month of that is "anything goes," but it's good more often than it's not. The shoulder seasons add an additional 2 months.

Gee, maybe I haven't turned into a Utah snow snob yet after all. :wink:

 

[Tony Crocker]

Sorry, it's not 4 months. I look this stuff up every week, and when areas are less than half open or it poured rain and then froze I'm not going to count that. I don't count those weeks for Baldy either.

I'l recap once more. I think SoCal local is worth about half of New England. Baldy is like the favored Vermont areas on this board, but offers quality skiing about half as often. Big Bear and Mt. High are like Okemo or Hunter Mt. with comparable reliability.

Mammoth is on a completely different level. Anyone who says that 5 hours is too far away for that level of quality and length of season is not a serious skier IMHO. Serious eastern skiers demonstrate this level of commitment all the time.

Add the two together and I don't see the case for New England over L.A. Over the past 30 years my drive-to skiing has been 33% SoCal local, 55% Mammoth and 12% Tahoe. I think that's an accurate division of ski area value to an L.A. resident.

 

[riverc0il]

Anyone who says that 5 hours is too far away for that level of quality and length of season is not a serious skier IMHO. Serious eastern skiers demonstrate this level of commitment all the time.

i have never skied mammoth (and i am not trying to judge on that level), but i do take issue with this statement. i don't know many new england skiers (many of them very serious, myself included) that would do a five hour day trip when comparable high quality areas are 2-3 hours. again, i am in no way making a case for new england over the west (though i definitely would not move to LA or CA for many other reasons not skiing related). but i would like to note that i consider myself a serious skier and will not day trip 4 hours or over. then again, there is nothing comparable to mammoth within 5 hours of me, so it's likely an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[20thSkier]

i don't know many new england skiers (many of them very serious, myself included) that would do a five hour day trip when comparable high quality areas are 2-3 hours.

Agreed, but what I think Tony is saying is that Mammoth is not a comparable high quality area, but rather something much better. I've never skied there, but am perfectly willing to believe this is true.

I mean, I routinely drive by Whaleback to go the extra 1.5 hours to MRG. So the real question is: if you had just driven 3+hrs to get to MRG or the like, and Mammoth was another 2 hours down the road, would you stop or keep going? I really love eastern tree skiing, but I'd probably keep going at least a substantial fraction of the time. So that means LA's proximity to Mammoth would be worth at least as much to me as Boston's proximity to the VT areas.

 

[Tony Crocker]

20thSkier understands my point. Southern California local skiing resembles New England on a smaller scale. The difference between a manicured snowmaking dependent area like Snow Summit or Okemo vs. a natural terrain area with tree skiing like Baldy or MRG is one thing. Mammoth is in a completely different league, and most people out here don't think twice about paying the weekend lodging cost in order to enjoy the superior scale, terrain and snow conditions. Some L.A. skiers shun SoCal local skiing completely because Mammoth has convinced them that it's their birthright to ski packed powder all the time.

Mammoth did recognize that lodging cost was proving to be a price barrier for the younger generation and instituted the Value Pass program. Since the gradations in New England ski quality are less dramatic, I think most of you draw riverc0il's bright line between day and weekend commute areas. You would not have have that attitude if you lived here. Here's a good analogy for Marc: suppose you lived in St. George instead of SLC. Brian Head would be your day area, but I'll bet you would make lots of weekend trips to the Wasatch.

 

[Admin]

Here's a good analogy for Marc: suppose you lived in St. George instead of SLC. Brian Head would be your day area, but I'll bet you would make lots of weekend trips to the Wasatch.

An illustrative analogy. Between this and 20thSkier's comments, I'm beginning to come around to your point of view. At least now I'm fully understanding it. That said, however, given the choice between living in New England and having a multitude of better than decent options within an easy daytrip, or L.A. where I had only one fantastic destination 5 hours away and less than dependable options close by, I'll confess that I'd rate the New England option higher.

 

[Patrick]

That said, however, given the choice between living in New England and having a multitude of better than decent options within an easy daytrip, or L.A. where I had only one fantastic destination 5 hours away and less than dependable options close by, I'll confess that I'd rate the New England option higher.

Montreal after Albuquerque :?:

Geez, Bugs Bunny is lost again :lol:

What's next, a hockey team in Phoenix :?: :lol: :?

Seriously, Marc's point on New England and L.A. pretty well sums up my opinion.

Although I've never been in the Western US, I stayed two Winter months with my wife outside Lyon (East side toward the Alps), France in 1992-3. To push this logic to extremes, I probably would choose Montreal over Lyon even if most of France's great skiing was within reach (2.5hr to 4hr).

The Non-snow Winter (or rare snow) was extremely depressing for me, especially at Christmas. I know L.A. is sunny, but I would take a snow storm in town over a beach anyday (at least 6 months of the year).

I guess for me, it's all about location, location, location in a Winter climat. This is probably one of the reason why I think I would probably put Montreal before Vancouver. Ottawa is not bad when my job is not driving me crazy. :?

Calgary would also be good, if it's were for other factor.

 

[riverc0il]

again, i understand tony's point, but it's apples and oranges and an unrealistic hypothetical to say if mammoth was 5 hours from the metro areas of new england, would it be worth the drive. it would of course be worth day trips or weekend trips because it would likely blow away much of new england ski areas. it's not a realistic point of comparison however because it's completely hypothetical.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I said fairly early in this thread that the argument would boil down to the relative value of daytrip vs. weekend areas. There is likely no metro area where the difference in quality between the 2 is so large as L.A. Nonetheless the SoCal local areas collectively sell about the same number of tickets as Mammoth. So my ratio of 5 Mammoth days to 3 local days does indicate that I am more willing than the average skier to pay up for the higher quality weekend area.

Patrick again introduces non-skiing factors into the equation. But I would think Vancouver would be very attractive (and I think the real estate prices there agree): a cosmopolitan city with world-class skiing within day commute distance. On the weather issue, I am of the opinion (and Marc's comments on his new home in SLC seem to support this) that snow is to play in, not to live in.

My real question for Patrick is why does he live in Ottawa instead of Montreal? BIG difference in quality of daytrip ski areas.

 

[Patrick]

My real question for Patrick is why does he live in Ottawa instead of Montreal? BIG difference in quality of daytrip ski areas.

At least it's not Florida. :lol: :wink:

Montreal from 0-29, Ottawa 29-???

Unfortunately when I left university with my masters degree in the early 90s, I couldn't find anything else that short contracts. Nothing to make a living out of, I extended my job search to Ottawa and Quebec City.

The first regular weekly pay cheque I found was in Ottawa. Ending up looking for another job one year later, had a job offer in Montreal, but turned it down. Now, I am in good paying job (for a geographer) and good benefits, however there are some downside as the odd of my ski trip go up or down reminds me.

Okay back to the topic. Ottawa versus MTL.

I was biased toward Montreal when I got here, but I have leaned to appreciate Ottawa. The skiing (lower laurentians quality) is much closer to downtown (4 500-600' vertical areas within 25 miles from downtown - 7 areas within one hour). Definately better with young kids skiing. Ottawa is definately smaller than Montreal (metro area 1.3m vs 3.5m) and has alot of none alpine skiing factor going for it. My neighbour cross-country skis after work along the Ottawa River (1 miles away), some people skate on the Rideau canal to go to work.

Big Quality areas are within reach of daytrip. Tremblant is 100 miles away (2 hr drive)(many many Ontarians hit Tremblant every weekend) and Whiteface is at 150 miles (3hr).

This said, I might move back to Montreal someday, but after 10 years in Ottawa, I have finally learn to fully aprreciate what the area has to offer. 4 years ago I discovered the Ottawa Masters Ski Association, races every Wednesday nights and many other good races program are found in the area. Ken Read and Patrick Biggs (1st year World Cup with a couple of 9 and 10tn places in slalom) raced as kids in the Ottawa Ski Club.

And last, but not least, Canadian Ski Museum is about 1 miles from my house. :wink:

 

[Patrick]

I forgot to mentioned one thing about Ottawa.

It's only 2 hours or 124 miles from Montreal. So my big area day trip into New England or Quebec City area are always gone from there.

I also like to see concerts and many acts do play in Montreal.

But wait, is that changing? This Summer/Fall: Rolling Stones, U2, Pearl Jam, Green Day etc... are all playing in Ottawa this year. :roll:

 

[Geoff]

But

• your Vermont experiences are all early or late season;
• Killington isn't the Vermont snow belt -- that would be from Sugarbush north; and
• Vermont seasons are far more consistent and reliable than SoCal's.

Huh? Kmart, Sugarbush, MRG, Stowe, and Smuggs all receive about 250" per year. Kmart just seems to get less because of the stupidly huge amount of skier traffic that wrecks the skiing surface.

 

[Geoff]

For my particular lifestyle which is ocean and ski-centric, Portland, ME isn't a bad spot. It's the gateway to some of the best yachting in the world. Sunday River, with strong snowmaking and a long (by eastern standards) season, is an hour and change away. Sugarloaf is a couple of hours away. You don't have that horrible Anywhere, USA uncontrolled sprawl of a Denver or a Salt Lake City or an LA.

Vancouver is also very attractive. They may have ruined Whistler but Mt Baker is still relatively unspoiled and there are lots of options 3 or 4 hours away in the interior.

 

[Tony Crocker]

To Geoff: You might want to check out the "other" Portland in Oregon. Seattle is better for both sports but it sounds like the metro area is too big for your tastes.

To Patrick: Ottawa vs. Montreal sounds like San Diego vs. L.A. as far a skiing is concerned; you add 2 hours to all the drives. If you are ocean as well as ski-centric San Diego's advantages in the latter offset L.A.'s in the former.

I guess I'm too spoiled to get excited about the 500-footers. While it's enough to teach young kids, I would usually mix a half-day of teaching with the other half on my own. By 5 or 6 my kids could get around bigger mountains under supervision just fine and we could enjoy them together. It can result in spoiled kids: when 11 year-old Adam was asked after skiing 29K on Vail how he liked it, he asked, "Where's the steep stuff?"

 

[Tony Crocker]

I would also object to the statement that "Whistler is ruined." The skiing is as good as ever, and if you want to do some of it without the crowds, they just opened 1,100 patrolled but not lift served acres for this purpose. Skiers are free to take or leave the other aspects of the resort depending upon one's tastes.

 

[Patrick]

Ottawa vs. Montreal sounds like San Diego vs. L.A. as far a skiing is concerned; you add 2 hours to all the drives.
(...)
I guess I'm too spoiled to get excited about the 500-footers. While it's enough to teach young kids, I would usually mix a half-day of teaching with the other half on my own. By 5 or 6 my kids could get around bigger mountains under supervision just fine and we could enjoy them together.

That how I felt when I left university, skiing many small hills with the ski team... I couldn't take it anymore and went beserk (sp?) for a few years. Day drives up to 4hours to anywhere above 2000'.

The move to Ottawa in January 1995 didn't change my skiing habits, tried the local night skiing, and would be back in Montreal for the weekend to head to the Real Mountain. Things started to slowing changing around when Morgane started skiing at 2.5yr, then by 5yr (when her sister was born) we got her in ski lessons, so 8 prime Saturday grounded to Ottawa.

Morgane definately LOVES bigger mountains. Her favorite is MRG and she can pretty much ski anything now (loved the Catamount Bowl>Catamount/Antelope>Moody>Ferret>Glades descent). The only problem in this is, she doesn't necessarly like the long drives. This said, she had alot of fun the time we went skiing at Mt.Pakenham in Ontario (40 miles) with only 80meters vertical (300') during the hoildays.

She would also love to be in a race program :roll: , I think she would love it, however if she starts racing and can kiss my long trip away for much more than 8 Saturdays. :?

Ottawa vs Montreal = adding 2 hours to the drive

This is not really the case,

1) night skiing and local skiing is definately closer (15-35km) than Montreal (60-80km minimum excluding St.Bruno).

2) Tremblant is 2 hours away versus 1.5hr from Montreal / Whiteface is 3 vs 1.75 from MTL.

You add only 2 hours to reach the Eastern Townships, New England and Quebec/Charlevoix region. St.Sauveur is 2 hours away instead of 30 minutes, but why go to the lower laurentians when the skiing locally is similar.

3) Mt Ste.Marie is 90km (55 miles) away with a 1300' vertical. This said, I rarely go, prefering to drive an extra hour to do to Tremblant.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Since the Eastern Townships, Northern Vermont and Quebec/Charlevoix are "the Real Mountains" in the East, that's why I made the 2 hour comment.

Snow Summit and Stoneham are almost identical in terms of ski terrain. That is close to my minimum standard. Both score points for maintaining consistent nice surfaces with their grooming/snowmaking. If I had a child who wanted to join a high quality race program at a smaller but closer area, that would probably be the only reason I would go there.

 

[Tony Crocker]

The San Diego vs. L.A. analogy still holds somewhat. The 2 hours is the difference to "the Real Mountains", with lesser distances to the smaller places.

Mammoth is 7 hours vs. 5
BUT:
Mt. Baldy is 2.5 vs. <1
Mt. High is 2 vs. 1.5
Big Bear is 2.5 vs. 2

I won't argue L.A. vs. San Diego. Adam has year-round surfing 10 minutes away from his college campus. Even though he loves skiing, I think he'd take San Diego.