How resorts are managed North America - pros and cons

[Cheizz]

Here in Europe - in the Alps at least - skiing started as a pastime in the early 20th century. Hotel owners would build a tow-rope ski lift along side a field next to their hotel in order to offer tourists something in winter too. Local farmers who couldn't farm their land due to the snow would start teaching skiing. This way, entire communities got into winter tourism.
In some areas - in France, mostly - ski resorts and villages were purpose-built in the 50s and 60s when people got more money to spend after WWII. Here, too, the local community was then and still is a major shareholder of the ski areas. In the more traditional valleys, even more so: local government has a major influence on the lift companies because there is a symbiotic relationship between the community (heavily relying on tourism, especially in winter, when farming is not really an option) and the lift company, who employ mostly local people in the running of the ski resort, ski schools, bars, restaurants, and hotels.

I have the sense that in the US (and Canada?) things started off a bit differently. More as a business opportunity in a big bang kind of way as opposed to the more organic process that we see in most European areas. Is that the case? And if so, what are the pros and cons of the way things originated and are managed today in US resorts?

 

[Johnfmh]

I have made multiple trips to Austria, Switzerland, Slovakia for skiing and ski in the American West, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England.

The pros of European resorts are:
—Much better food, both in town and especially on mountain.
—Charming hotels and towns (I speak of Austria and Switzerland but not France, where I have never skied)
—Public transit: town and lift access busses, regional “Post” bus service, and of course trains. I generally do not rent cars when skiing in Europe.
—Ski busses in most cities going to different resorts every weekend.
—Less expensive ski tickets, and equipment rental.
—Much cheaper beer and wine.
—Better night life and après if that is your thing. Big slopeside bars with dancers and live musical entertainment or DJs.
—Some truly spectacular mountain scenary.

Cons:
—Crowds. Skiing is more financially accessible to the middle classes in Europe and many excellent resorts are a quick train or ski bus away. The most crowded slopes I have ever skied, especially St. Anton, Ischgl, and Solden.
—Poor lift line control and unruly behavior in lines amongst people who often do not speak the same language.
—Snow quality does not compare to most places in the American West.
—Less natural snow than many Western US resorts.
—Snowmaking is much more limited.
—Different regions have different certification standards for instructors.
—Day care for small children does not seem as widely available, although I don’t have kids so I cannot really comment.
—Off piste requires a guide and there’s no such thing as side country. This tends to concentrate people on marked trails and shrinks resorts.
—A lot of hotels and apartments only allow 7 day bookings.
—No real equivalent to Ikon and Epic in terms of resort variety and price. With a few exceptions, you can ski a single domain of linked resorts on a single pass but not multiple ski domains.
—Many resorts rely heavily on crowded trams, funiculars, and gondolas for access to towns. There are few resorts where one can ride uphill all day in the open air on chairs.

Because my two main concerns are crowds and snow, I tend to favor N. American skiing these days given the choice. I will only ski Europe if work takes me there.

 

[François Pugh]

I've never been to Europe, but from what I've read, ski lessons are a lot cheaper. Whether or not that leads to a higher percentage of better skiers is another question.

 

[Rod9301]

Snow quality does not compare to most places in the American West


Absolutely, the snow on the US comes from clouds that are genetically engineered to provide the best quality snow and there's a dome that separates us from Europe, so they get much lower quality snow.

 

[dovski]

Reading the above my initial reaction is that Europe is a big place so it really depends where you ski there. When I skied Verbier they had epic POW that was on par with the best we have here. Lift infrastructure was overwhelming as we had access to over 100 lifts servicing 12 connected regions and something like 500 miles of trails. If you took a wrong turn you could end up in a different town and have to take the train home (actually met some folks who planned it that way). Much less grooming than NA. The mountain was public lands, the lifts were privately operated by different companies. On hill lodges, restaurants, bars, nightclubs ... etc simply amazing. Food and beverage quality was amazing. Food and beverage price very expensive.

Long story short you could easily spend a weak there and feel like you were skiing a different mountain every day ... because you were. Much more organic development vs corporate resort development in the US. Lift tickets and rentals were cheap but everything else was expensive. Experience however was amazing. No guides required for off piste, though the area was so big having one is definitely recommended.

 

[SBrown]

Here in Europe - in the Alps at least - skiing started as a pastime in the early 20th century. Hotel owners would build a tow-rope ski lift along side a field next to their hotel in order to offer tourists something in winter too. Local farmers who couldn't farm their land due to the snow would start teaching skiing. This way, entire communities got into winter tourism.
In some areas - in France, mostly - ski resorts and villages were purpose-built in the 50s and 60s when people got more money to spend after WWII. Here, too, the local community was then and still is a major shareholder of the ski areas. In the more traditional valleys, even more so: local government has a major influence on the lift companies because there is a symbiotic relationship between the community (heavily relying on tourism, especially in winter, when farming is not really an option) and the lift company, who employ mostly local people in the running of the ski resort, ski schools, bars, restaurants, and hotels.

I have the sense that in the US (and Canada?) things started off a bit differently. More as a business opportunity in a big bang kind of way as opposed to the more organic process that we see in most European areas. Is that the case? And if so, what are the pros and cons of the way things originated and are managed today in US resorts?

Not entirely. Around here (CO), it was Europeans and 10th Mtn vets who started things, and while maybe more about a business opportunity than it was in Europe, it wasn't for that solely; it wasn't to be "fancy." Here is a succinct little history: https://mtntownmagazine.com/the-10th-mountain-division-the-ski-industry-catalyst/

Another article I found (skiing wasn't completely an Everyman experience in the Alps, either): https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...iing-went-from-the-alps-to-the-masses/385691/

 

[dbostedo]

I have the sense that in the US (and Canada?) things started off a bit differently. More as a business opportunity in a big bang kind of way as opposed to the more organic process that we see in most European areas. Is that the case?

I'm not all that knowledgeable, but from what I've seen/read, I wouldn't say that's quite the case. A lot of skiing the American west was created by Europeans or Americans to try to recreate the recreation from Europe, especially post WW2. A lot of current ski towns are old mining towns, that wanted recreation in the winter.

Here's a pretty good article, though not real deep or comprehensive.

How Skiing Went From the Alps to the Masses

Thanks to ski lifts, snow cannons, and plenty of dynamite, what used to be a ritzy European pursuit is now an accessible middle-class pastime.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Posaune]

The U.S. is a very large place with widely separated, geologically diverse mountain ranges that display different ownership patterns. You can't give a one-size-fits-all description.

Skiing in my section of the U.S. (Pacific Northwest) mostly began after WWII with small outfits and a few rope tows, mainly on government land with permits. The popularity of the sport gradually increased and uphill infrastructure did too. Since almost every ski area/resort is on public land there is not the ability to expand that there is in Europe. Around here, except for in Canada, there is not a "resort" experience, just ski areas available to locals from close-in urban areas. People don't tend to live in our mountains.

 

[Jilly]

Ontario started and still is small family or small business run hills. Many have not survived. There is only 1 large, ie many option pass, and that is Blue Mountain. Everyone else is individually run and may have association with others...Brimacombe and Sir Sam's for example.

Quebec started out the same way and to some extent the same as Europe, but with American $$. Grey Rocks brought the "ski week" to Quebec. Over the years smaller hills have come and gone. Tremblant is owned by Alterra, Mont Ste Anne is Resorts of the Canadian Rockies and the lower Laurentains are all part of Mont St Saveur International (that at one time owned Jay Peak). In the Eastern Townships, the resorts there have joined together for tourism and offer exchangeable passes over a week.

I'm not really up on our western resorts. I know that some were started similar to Quebec with the hotel and lift nearby.

 

[mdf]

I think the older areas in North America grew gradually and organically, similar to what you described in Europe. A lot of smaller New England areas are still operated by locals who need out-of-season work, as opposed to the young wanderers who staff the big corporate areas.

I think the lease of US Forest Service land has driven the pattern of having one large corporation running the whole operation. And once that pattern was established, the idea of having different owners for different lifts was just too different for anyone to consider.

 

[Bad Bob]

A number of NA 'ski areas' are, or evolved from, community ski clubs. The 'ski resorts' less often.
In this region (Inland NW/Northern Rockies) a few examples are Mt. Spokane, Schweitzer, 49° North, Bridger Bowl, Snow King, and the list goes on. Due to cost of operations and demands of time, a lot of these have been sold off to private enterprise but the often still maintain a little different flavor, and a lot less long term planning.
The use of Forest Service land has made major differences at many resorts, as brought up by @Posaune. Much more restrictive, for better or worse.

 

[Sibhusky]

Whitefish started as "the big mountain" above town which folks hiked up to to ski. Eventually those skiers built a cabin so that the first hike, from down by the lake, wasn't so bad and you'd get to the cabin and climb far less the next day. Then some guys decided they wanted to create a real ski area and got folks in town to pony up some money and put in a rope tow and a few structures. It grew from there, becoming a $ venture in 1947, having been delayed a bit by the war. Not too different from Europe.

 

[Mike Thomas]

I've never been to Europe, but I do have a pair of 208cm Kastle SG skis and from what I've read, ski lessons are a lot cheaper. Whether or not that leads to a higher percentage of better skiers is another question.

I think this is what you meant to post.

(sorry, I couldn't resist the low hanging fruit)

 

[SpikeDog]

To the original poster - you don't really follow the title of the thread up with ski resort management as the topic, or perhaps there's some immediate thread drift. How resorts are managed vs. how they originated vs bad snow and crowds, etc. The possibility of confirmation bias is ripe in this discussion. The USA used to be chock full of mom and pop hills where a tractor was made into a rope tow for the winter along the back 40 too steep to be plowed; can't get much more organic than that?

I don't think too many ski resort managers are lurking on SkiTalk ready to discuss the topic. I would hope both US and European resorts could learn from each other.

 

[noncrazycanuck]

in BC all of the ski areas were initially started by ski clubs or the local community as early as the 1920's.
It wasn't until the 60's that a lot of improvements began that required deeper corporate pockets.
The process has taken almost a century in a part of the world where there was almost no development a century prior.

Individual operations hill to hill I haven't noticed much difference either here or Europe.
not allowing private ski instructors to ply their trade within a resort might be.

 

[SBrown]

To the original poster - you don't really follow the title of the thread up with ski resort management as the topic, or perhaps there's some immediate thread drift. How resorts are managed vs. how they originated vs bad snow and crowds, etc. The possibility of confirmation bias is ripe in this discussion. The USA used to be chock full of mom and pop hills where a tractor was made into a rope tow for the winter along the back 40 too steep to be plowed; can't get much more organic than that?

I don't think too many ski resort managers are lurking on SkiTalk ready to discuss the topic. I would hope both US and European resorts could learn from each other.

I think it was immediate thread drift -- it's an interesting premise, but not a completely accurate one, so maybe it's hard to link the origin and management. Perhaps the Forest Service-corporation link is the key rather than the origination. I mean, yeah, Beaver Creek for instance started in the 80s as a planned fancy place (and Vail, too, a few decades earlier), but many many others did not. Some of them have been bought and expanded, others haven't.

 

[Bad Bob]

Is it true that many of the lifts at European resorts are owned by private individuals?
That would make a huge difference in how an area would be managed. Not aware of a NA resort that does not own its lift system. Perhaps more complicated than a western area having the government as your senior partner.
How does it work with the huge European ski circuits operating on a single lift ticket? Even more difficult, how did it work in the days before computer scanning a ticket? What an prime invitation for businesses to get into a dog fight.
Also understand that much of the land on European resorts is privately owned, as in somebodies pasture land. How does that work? Are the land owners compensated? This would make for some interesting accounting too.

 

[mdf]

immediate thread drift

I'll admit I was annoyed that the first responses in this thread didn't seem to be about the question asked.

 

[dbostedo]

I think 2 things probably influence the current state of management differences... and maybe helped prompt @Cheizz's questions...

-- The density of interconnected towns/villages in Europe vs. the lack of mountain town/ski lift density leading to the monolithic stand-alone resort model in the US
-- And subsequently, the corporatization of the monolithic resorts in the US that their isolation affords, and the difficulty of doing that in Europe

Even if resorts in the US started out organically (say, a farmer's rope tow to get some income in the winter), proximity and popularity (or lack thereof) has created the condition where everything at that one spot/area is under one umbrella. And that umbrella has increasingly been a big company over the years.

I'd also think that the timing of development may have made it get less organic over time in the US - as they have a Euro model to work from. And I'm very much speculating here... but perhaps developers could see the "organic" resorts starting in the US in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and could look at the Euro resorts as a model of what skiers want. Then they had the opportunity to say "If I buy this land/lifts or get the rights, I can install a village, restaurants, rentals, and shops, and own everything".

The flip side is, per what @Bad Bob asked... for a given large Euro resort, who owns the land, the lifts, the buildings, and the operating rights? Why are they not all owned by one company (presuming they aren't)? Is there any move by ski/resort companies to buy up the land, lifts, etc.?

 

[Bill Miles]

Is it true that many of the lifts at European resorts are owned by private individuals?
That would make a huge difference in how an area would be managed. Not aware of a NA resort that does not own its lift system. Perhaps more complicated than a western area having the government as your senior partner.
How does it work with the huge European ski circuits operating on a single lift ticket? Even more difficult, how did it work in the days before computer scanning a ticket? What an prime invitation for businesses to get into a dog fight.
Also understand that much of the land on European resorts is privately owned, as in somebodies pasture land. How does that work? Are the land owners compensated? This would make for some interesting accounting too.

Back when Aspen Highlands was independent. a four mountain ticket was a mess and inconvenient to customers, until Skico finally bought Highlands a few years after the former owner diedl