Great read. The points on MCP / James Coleman were of particular interest. Would love if he made it on the podcast. If he could build out his partner network he would make a more compelling case for skiers in AZ, Vegas and NM, all states which he could effectively own if he landed a few partnerships with some bigger flagships in his regions.
With regards to expansions, here's one not a lot of people are tracking. Taos operates almost entirely on Forest Service land. Right across the street from Taos is 1300 Acres of Private Land historically held by the Pattinson Trust. This known to the public as Northside at Taos Ski Valley. To the extent that it operates at all, it's currently a fee restricted private land downhill mountain bike park. However, per Village of Taos Ski Valley's 2017 Master Plan, " the Pattison Trust has presented a master development plan for the potential future development of a ski resort and accompanying retail and residential development." The stats are pretty impressive on it. 2800' Vert, 12,150' Peak (Just across the street at the resort Kachina is around 12'500). This land is capital S steep. The village has cut out no less than three Avy chutes through it to protect their infrastructure. The road to get up there could generously be called a goat trail. In the winter, it's basically dead. Taos backcountry guys (to the extent they exist) really don't tour here in favor of the terrain around Lake Fork Peak. In the summer it's also pretty dead as the fairly mild ski resort at Angel Fire transforms into a top quality lift served bike resort. There are many obstacles which make either a new resort, or an expansion of TSV onto this terrain improbable (Taos does not have a 'lacking steep terrain problem', No easy way to tie it into lift system, snowmaking would be required, terrain is not amenable to a minimalist Bohemia or Beartooth Basin or Bluebird Backcountry type resort, etc.) However, the facts that you have a ski area sized chunk of private land, adjacent to one of the best resorts in the US, masterplan submitted to become it's own resort and ownership willing to allow fee based access to the land are pretty neat.
I just looked through the 2017 plan and saw this line concerning the Pattison land "The final recommendation was that the site be valued more for its natural characteristics than potential for ski development due to excessive costs."
As much as I wish it would happen, I'm not sure it will.
Oh wow, that’s awesome intell. I had not heard of that before, and it did not come up in my pod convo with David Norden last year. Thanks for that! As far as a Coleman pod goes, he has a standing invitation and MCP has been terrific to work with. I love what they’re doing and hope to make it happen at some point.
#1 Question and #1 Answer - why the PacNW can't expand despite a doubling of the population in 25 years. Thanks for this. I've known this for so long as I am in heavy civil construction (public works) so I see the insane time, effort, and money it takes to do the smallest roadway project, let alone terrain expansion or the impossible: a new resort. Protecting the environment is great, but the ever expanding population (all of which which seems to be moving to the mountains) is in the end, the start of the issue.
The laws governing federal land, which is where our ski resorts/mountains are here in WA, are the same everywhere. They are no different in WA than anywhere else. Ski areas in the East or Midwest are less likely to be on public or federal land, which means there is less regulation. In general I think there is little public appetite for ski resort development in WA. I don't like crowded slopes but I don't want new parking lots, logged areas and all the other stuff that would come with ski area development in the Cascades either. Other user groups would be a serious obstacle--look at how snowmobilers sunk the backcountry ski yurts in the Teanaway. There are way more outdoors people here that aren't skiers that use lift service resort than there are. Not to mention that all of the obvious places for ski area development WERE developed in the 50s and 60s, and most have closed due to their low elevation. Read Lowell Skoog's ski history book for more on that.
How are skier visits flat when weekdays are up, and many ski areas are crowded? Where aren't people skiing? The Indy and non-mega resorts looks busy too.
What an interesting edition. Great job and thanks for all the effort! Hope your recovery continues to go well. While you're on the lazing on the recliner i recommend Alan Fursts historically correct thriller spy stores of the WWII. There are 12 of them, all great stories with an occasional nod to skiing.
This was excellent. Thank you.
Great read. The points on MCP / James Coleman were of particular interest. Would love if he made it on the podcast. If he could build out his partner network he would make a more compelling case for skiers in AZ, Vegas and NM, all states which he could effectively own if he landed a few partnerships with some bigger flagships in his regions.
With regards to expansions, here's one not a lot of people are tracking. Taos operates almost entirely on Forest Service land. Right across the street from Taos is 1300 Acres of Private Land historically held by the Pattinson Trust. This known to the public as Northside at Taos Ski Valley. To the extent that it operates at all, it's currently a fee restricted private land downhill mountain bike park. However, per Village of Taos Ski Valley's 2017 Master Plan, " the Pattison Trust has presented a master development plan for the potential future development of a ski resort and accompanying retail and residential development." The stats are pretty impressive on it. 2800' Vert, 12,150' Peak (Just across the street at the resort Kachina is around 12'500). This land is capital S steep. The village has cut out no less than three Avy chutes through it to protect their infrastructure. The road to get up there could generously be called a goat trail. In the winter, it's basically dead. Taos backcountry guys (to the extent they exist) really don't tour here in favor of the terrain around Lake Fork Peak. In the summer it's also pretty dead as the fairly mild ski resort at Angel Fire transforms into a top quality lift served bike resort. There are many obstacles which make either a new resort, or an expansion of TSV onto this terrain improbable (Taos does not have a 'lacking steep terrain problem', No easy way to tie it into lift system, snowmaking would be required, terrain is not amenable to a minimalist Bohemia or Beartooth Basin or Bluebird Backcountry type resort, etc.) However, the facts that you have a ski area sized chunk of private land, adjacent to one of the best resorts in the US, masterplan submitted to become it's own resort and ownership willing to allow fee based access to the land are pretty neat.
I just looked through the 2017 plan and saw this line concerning the Pattison land "The final recommendation was that the site be valued more for its natural characteristics than potential for ski development due to excessive costs."
As much as I wish it would happen, I'm not sure it will.
Oh wow, that’s awesome intell. I had not heard of that before, and it did not come up in my pod convo with David Norden last year. Thanks for that! As far as a Coleman pod goes, he has a standing invitation and MCP has been terrific to work with. I love what they’re doing and hope to make it happen at some point.
I can’t decide whether this post is merely Epic or simply Ikonic, but I’m glad I found this excellent Indy journalist.
#1 Question and #1 Answer - why the PacNW can't expand despite a doubling of the population in 25 years. Thanks for this. I've known this for so long as I am in heavy civil construction (public works) so I see the insane time, effort, and money it takes to do the smallest roadway project, let alone terrain expansion or the impossible: a new resort. Protecting the environment is great, but the ever expanding population (all of which which seems to be moving to the mountains) is in the end, the start of the issue.
The laws governing federal land, which is where our ski resorts/mountains are here in WA, are the same everywhere. They are no different in WA than anywhere else. Ski areas in the East or Midwest are less likely to be on public or federal land, which means there is less regulation. In general I think there is little public appetite for ski resort development in WA. I don't like crowded slopes but I don't want new parking lots, logged areas and all the other stuff that would come with ski area development in the Cascades either. Other user groups would be a serious obstacle--look at how snowmobilers sunk the backcountry ski yurts in the Teanaway. There are way more outdoors people here that aren't skiers that use lift service resort than there are. Not to mention that all of the obvious places for ski area development WERE developed in the 50s and 60s, and most have closed due to their low elevation. Read Lowell Skoog's ski history book for more on that.
How are skier visits flat when weekdays are up, and many ski areas are crowded? Where aren't people skiing? The Indy and non-mega resorts looks busy too.
I have no idea, other than perhaps shorter seasons overall are pushing the same number of skiers into a smaller window?
What an interesting edition. Great job and thanks for all the effort! Hope your recovery continues to go well. While you're on the lazing on the recliner i recommend Alan Fursts historically correct thriller spy stores of the WWII. There are 12 of them, all great stories with an occasional nod to skiing.