Solitude Expansion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

It seems like you are intentionally clouding the issue by picking a BC skier vs. resort skier fight. Think of it this way - the same arguments could be made for putting a golf course in Silver Fork and I'm sure golfers, the Forest Service and Solitude Management would be all for that as well. Once that happens, don't try to drag your hippie ass in there for hiking, picnicking, bird watching, bow hunting, camping, flower sniffing or whatever else the public might try to do on public land. This is a golf course, damn it, and you are welcome to be here as long as you obey the rules, pay your fees and buy some weak, overpriced 3.2 beer at the clubhouse.

---

Strangely, there was a golf course, Valle Escondido, in a valley on the carson NF. I imagine their reasoning was something like this: more people will enjoy this than not. Greatest good/most people. Also relevantly, the golf course was a great place to nordic ski in the winter.

By the way, I am not a "resort skier"...as I said earlier, and you evidently failed to read: I like skiing at ski areas. I have never had the cash to stay at ski "resorts". Never. I have worked at a few. Isn't this about exactly the conflict you say I've picked: an inbounds skier vs. BC skier conflict?

Your picking a fight = my trying to understand the terms of the debate.

In that case, I'd say my side of the debate is that there are enough golf courses and mega ski areas already, especially in the small and crowded Wasatch. How about yourself? More is better?

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress...n-tear65p1.jpg

My gut feeling is that undeveloped, publicly accessible open space is for the local people of a given area. Development on the other hand is for opportunistic outsiders who see open space as a commodity rather than a part of their daily life.

We need to find middle ground on ski area development. Right now it is at both ends of the extreme, all or nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyber Cop

Can we focus on stopping the Mormon expansion first.

Or give them Jer on a permanent basis. That would be fair.

---

The mormon expansion is why they are so low-key to begin with. Don't fix what ain't broken.



:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol Skier

We need to find middle ground on ski area development. Right now it is at both ends of the extreme, all or nothing.

---

In many cases I am for expansion of ski areas where those expansions are justified. Thus, in many cases I agree that well-planned ski area expansion should go forward. Howevr, for the central wasatch, I think the answer is "nothing." The central wasatch is a really small range. It has 7 ski areas and most of them are pretty big (I would love to see a calculation of what portion of the terrain between Parleys and American Fork is within a ski area's boundaries - I bet the number is 2 to 10 times higher than for any other range in the US). Even small, incremental expansions in the central wasatch every few years could lead to a situation where the whole range is covered in lifts. As much as I like lift-served skiing, I think we need to leave some of the range for hiking and backcountry skiing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

How about yourself? More is better?

---

more good lift served skiing is better for me.

and I'm sorry I made Alto's indian companion cry. Again. :redface:

WWDWD???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiski

In many cases I am for expansion of ski areas where those expansions are justified. Thus, in many cases I agree that well-planned ski area expansion should go forward. Howevr, for the central wasatch, I think the answer is "nothing." The central wasatch is a really small range. It has 7 ski areas and most of them are pretty big (I would love to see a calculation of what portion of the terrain between Parleys and American Fork is within a ski area's boundaries - I bet the number is 2 to 10 times higher than for any other range in the US). Even small, incremental expansions in the central wasatch every few years could lead to a situation where the whole range is covered in lifts. As much as I like lift-served skiing, I think we need to leave some of the range for hiking and backcountry skiing.

---

If they're going to do any expanding of lifts in the Central Wasatch a lift from DV/PCMR <-> Brighton makes more sense due to the bed base in Park City. And well, this is in the works as well (lift up 10,420, and Clayton is already lift served from Brighton). I would be against any lift expansion as well though. Seven ski areas all within site of each other is plenty (too much already). I like the idea of ski areas, but haven't been to one in years. I just enjoy touring. It's like hiking or peak bagging in the summer, just that you use skis/skins in the winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rontele

WWDWD???

---

spew ecco warrior crap on ttips

block the canyon with his prius?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

more good lift served skiing is better for me.

---

No kidding. That's why areas like Vail and Killington rock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

No kidding. That's why areas like Vail and Killington rock.

---

Exactly! I want Silver Fork to be just like Killington! I'll tell you the truth broseph, I'd probably have a better time lapping Outer Limits for 2 hours than skinning for 2 hours.

But another good point: skiing is definitely a binary system: either Killington or BC.
Not skiing BC today= "HAH WANKER! HAVE FUN AT KILLINGTON BRAH"

My mind isn't even really made up here, but if that's the reasoning for keeping lifts out....:nonono2: I'm pretty sure adding 500 acres and a lift to solitude won't make it Vail.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

I think we can all agree development has been marching on for some time now. Granted, my Utah skiing history only goes back 45 years, but let's take a little walk down memory lane and see who wants to roll back the clock.

How about skiing at Alta when there was no Snowbird.

Skiing at Brighton meant you had Mary's, Majestic and Millicent was a single chair.

A day at Solitude was nearly a guarantee of getting stuck on the horribly unreliable Moonbeam or Powderhorn chairs.

I have fond Alta memories of skiing over to what would later become Snowbird.

I also have fond memories of skiing at the Bird.

I am definitely not saying I'm in favor of a new lift in Silver Fork. However, many of you have built lasting memories afforded by chairlifts and ski resorts that many before you opposed.

I truly believe development can't go on endlessly, nor should it. But next time you're riding the (insert lift name here) on a big time blower day, ask yourself what your ski day would be like without that chair.


You may now resume your pro and con rants and recitations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

I'm pretty sure adding 500 acres and a lift to solitude won't make it Vail.

---

Vail, like Rome, was not built in a day. Give it a few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InspectorGadget

I truly believe development can't go on endlessly, nor should it. But next time you're riding the (insert lift name here) on a big time blower day, ask yourself what your ski day would be like without that chair.

---

Or, the next time you are skiing the Meadow Chutes and looking over at the squalor known as Solitude, think of how much it would suck to have a lift put in there.

It's true, yet another good point. Skiing inbounds at solitude sucks balls.

You are on fire tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

Or, the next time you are skiing the Meadow Chutes and looking over at the squalor known as Solitude, think of how much it would suck to have a lift put in there.

---

Hey now the guy that wrote the book on chutes in the wasatch told me there were not any chutes in the meadows.
Wait a minute that was you or an alias
Damn IG your old ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

I'm pretty sure adding 500 acres and a lift to solitude won't make it Vail.

---

Nope, Soli is too steep. Even without the expansion.



:D

The one Silver Fork development I endorse:
http://www.silverforklodge.com/art/p...nt_chimney.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alto

The one Silver Fork development I endorse:
http://www.silverforklodge.com/art/p...nt_chimney.jpg

---

X2!


:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alto

The one Silver Fork development I endorse:
http://www.silverforklodge.com/art/p...nt_chimney.jpg

---

"If you only knew" what goes down in that kitchen:eek:
One of my favorite soli memories is Dan trying to drag a bunch of his guests and their gear up fantasy ridge and patrol having to "rescue" them. Fucking classic.
Woot another page might as well keep the silver stoke going
toph sucking it up
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...hbum/sd121.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alto

The one Silver Fork development I endorse:
http://www.silverforklodge.com/art/p...nt_chimney.jpg

---

That was ski area development circa 1960's. This is what it looks like nowadays - a view of the brand new St. Regis Hotel at Dear Valet...

http://straightchuter.com/am-content/stpool.jpg
Outdoor heated pool at 7,200' in the middle of one of the largest snow zones in the US.

http://straightchuter.com/am-content/stfire.jpg
The "ring of fire" at the outdoor bar (totally empty when I was there). They've basically run a gas main under a bunch of river rocks and keep it torched at all times.

Aside from the overtly conspicuous waste involved with heated pools and outdoor blast furnaces, I don't really care if developers do stuff like this on private property as it makes a lot of wealthy people feel extra special. But, the problem is that all ski areas are trending towards this type of thing. A friend skied Alta a couple days ago and after signing his credit card receipt took a second look at it - $57 for four hours of skiing on rocks and man-made snow. Resorts are becoming more like private golf clubs for the wealthy and in that case, I don't think they should be given public land to help further their cheesy empires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

That was ski area development circa 1960's. This is what it looks like nowadays - a view of the brand new St. Regis Hotel at Dear Valet...

http://straightchuter.com/am-content/stpool.jpg
Outdoor heated pool at 7,200' in the middle of one of the largest snow zones in the US.

http://straightchuter.com/am-content/stfire.jpg
The "ring of fire" at the outdoor bar (totally empty when I was there). They've basically run a gas main under a bunch of river rocks and keep it torched at all times.

Aside from the overtly conspicuous waste involved with heated pools and outdoor blast furnaces, I don't really care if developers do stuff like this on private property as it makes a lot of wealthy people feel extra special. But, the problem is that all ski areas are trending towards this type of thing. A friend skied Alta a couple days ago and after signing his credit card receipt took a second look at it - $57 for four hours of skiing on rocks and man-made snow. Resorts are becoming more like private golf clubs for the wealthy and in that case, I don't think they should be given public land to help further their cheesy empires.

---

Right, because skiing used to be so much more affordable when adjusted for inflation. Oh, wait a sec.... With the exception of small local feeder hills, skiing always has been, and always will be, a pursuit for the wealthier segments of our society.

And I don't quite understand the point about DV. Are you saying that's the only and inevitable outcome for Solitude if the Silver Fork expansion goes through? Not exactly a compelling argument given that DV is about as far out on the end of the retard spectrum as you can get.