Exactly. Hunter North is too steep and icy for intermediates and too mellow and boring for advanced skiers.
Yes, but it adds more trails to spread out the weekend crowds at Hunter. Hunter still lacks blue terrain, but Hunter is still better with the North pod than it would be without the North pod.
The west side had a lift and 3 trails already cut. They could have spent far less than a third of the money they spent on the No go North and just improved the snow making on the west. And maybe have used the X trail on the west as a fourth, with snow making added. They also could of added trees to Westway making it two trails while getting the wind break they need to hold snow on it-- all this for far less than the folly on the North.
North was created to have another access point into Hunter - parking and potentially a lodge. North also faces due north so it could remain open later in the spring (like Superstar at Killington) and Hunter would not need to maintain snow on the main face (which faces east and southeast) and open up the main base area.
I do not think Hunter owns enough land at the base of West to create a base area with parking.
As for the X-trail, it was illegally cut in the early 1980s and some of it went outside the land the Slutzky family owned into NYS land. The drainage just west of the X cut is NYS land and the Sutzkys were actively try to trade other land they owned in the area for that drainage. The skiing is great in there. Because of the way the Slutzkys cut the trail before the deal, NYS will probably never let Hunter expand up the X trail. Maybe the new owners will be able to convince NYS to change about using the X.
boston.cbslocal.com
