yurp resorts don't have owners

[verbier61]

Yes, Euro resorts have owners.

Sorry to say that everytime I have gotten into a discussion w/ my fellow Americans about land/property being owned by the "commune" the hair on the backs of their necks begins to stand on end.

Most cannot get beyond the sound of the word w/o taking time to understand the system, both pluses and minuses.

It does work and benefit the "commune"; that is to say the community. Forest land, grazing land (the alpage...Alpes), water rights, electrical production, etc are owned and managed for the benefit of those that live in the commune. Communal lands.

It is still private enterprise. The primary stockholders are the people who live in the commune...sorry community. That is one reason you see some many 2nd and 3rd tier ski stations over here. They exist because the community makes money from attracting tourists who use the hotels, restos, drink beer, buy postcards and cowbells.

It think the closest you could come to the concept in the States is that ski station outside of Denver that you can take a train to. Sorry, forgot the name.

Now, the US mega-resorts... don't let me get started

yes.
So, said once again....

[verbier61]

.. and, splat, PLEEEEZ.... paste your avatar somewhere in this thread

[AntiSoCalSkier]

No one has really mentioned alother big difference between Euro resorts and US resorts. Since most US ski areas are on Forest Service land, the resort operators are given an effective monopoly on providing services at the ski area. No matter how much you beg and plead, the Forest Service won't let you open a pizza joint at the top of Chair 22 on Mammoth Mountain. Likewise, you can't start up a ski school in the town of Mammoth Lakes (at least not if you plan to teach your students using the trails and lifts of the resort).

In Europe on the other hand, there are at least 2 or 3 ski schools at the base of each resort, not to mention a million and one restaurants. Some of these are owned by the lift companies, but a lot of them are independently owned and operated. Alta is the only place I can think of that follows this model. As I understand it, there is a lift company, then there is the Alf Engen Ski School, and some of the restaurants are independantly owned. This may not have a big effect on food prices, but it does seem to have an effect on lesson prices, since the ski school isn't expected to subsidize the rest of the resort (of course I'm looking at an old brochure for lesson prices, so I might be wrong).

[TeleAl]

You can't buy a decent burger in Europe.

That's not true. In my 8 years here,
I found 2 places that have excellent burgers.
Not 1, but a whole 2 dammit!

G3, at the bottom of the Combe d'Audon, complete with Budvar on tap.
The/Le Yeti, Leysin, complete with Guiness.

But, I ate a lot of shitty Euro burgers in my search for them.

[subtle plague]

i have umlauts right on my keyboard ! but hey im socialistic, so that doesn't count

Ö Ä Ü and the mighty ß !!!!!

btw. skiing is cheaper here. (and better.. hrr hrr flame away.... )
cheap us resorts are still more expensive than high class european ones.( and am i the only one who thinks Verbier is too expensive? )
and when i throw in the krippenstein prices no one can compete
what about 90 euros(120$) for 6 days ? in an area where you can easily make 30.000 feet vertical a day.

[Jumper Bones]

there is one rather significant factor that people are overlooking here - how much skiing is a part of the western european culture, and how much it is NOT a part of the average american culture. Most Euro countries have some rather substantial mountain ranges, which pretty much dominate several of the countries where some of you starting this thread live. Switzerland and Austria, from what I understand, are all mountainous. Florida and Texas in the US are not at all. Look at where American and Canadian population centers are - there really aren't very many people who live in and around mountains at all (with the exceptions of Denver and Salt Lake City).
Additionally, look at how many europeans have been exposed to skiing, and how many Americans have. Europeans generally get government-mandated vacation time, and considering the sizes of most euro nations are smaller than many of our states, it's relatively easy to get from one side of the country to the other (assuming you don't have mountains at your backdoor already). Not so in America - we don't get gov't-mandated vacation holidays, and generally it can be rather expensive to get a family from say Virginia to mountainous areas like Salt Lake City. So, as a consequence, the average American might only get a week of vacation from his employer if he's lucky, and why would he want to take his kids skiing? I mean they might rather go to Disney World or to see their family for Christmas or something like that. But the average time your average joe can get to "the slopes" is just a couple days a year, if that.
Also, look at whom your average skiing American is - more or less white, from or in a fairly middle to upper class, usually an independantly-minded person who doesn't mind differing from the social norm and not being where everybody else is (at the beach, shopping in the malls, at the NASCAR races, etc). How many American skiers are black? How many are latino? Shit, how many are even female (before people get on me about this, consider the male-female ration in ski towns)? Not many.
And here's a story - I'm in Oklahoma right now, and I've been here for about 6 months now for work, just about to go home. We had a rather substantial cold front move through wednesday, which dropped temperatures substantially - 20 degrees within 10 minutes (I was outside in it when it happened). Temps have been faily low the last couple days, with daily highs in the 60's F. Anyway two days ago I was at a convenience store and there was a guy who came in, all swaddled up in long-sleeve jeans, a leather jacket, a scarf, a beanie hat, and gloves, and he was still red in the face like he'd walked in from it being 30 below outside. He kept raving about how COLD it was, and how he hates the cold more than anything else in this world. Anyway it was in the 50s outside, nice and cool, and I'm standing there in my shorts, flip-flops, and hoodie dumbfounded, but there's your average non-skiing American right there, who isn't pissed that it's been above 90 degrees here every day for the last 5 months straight like I am, and who isn't happy when things cool down for just a couple days.
Anyway the fact is that in the average American culture, skiing is a microcosm of it, and most people don't do it all that often. Generally speaking most good jobs are not located anywhere near ski towns, but are consolidated to cities hundreds or thousands of miles away from the mountains. And skiing and everything involved in the attempt to participate in it is so expensive that most Americans don't do it that much, maybe getting a few chances in a year or even a lifetime. Geography and culture here are significantly different than they are in europe, so this ownership issue is really an apples-to-oranges thing.

[schindlerpiste]

Huh? I must have a block. A lot of what you say is true, but what's the point? Why should a red neck living in the bible belt have anything to do with this discussion? There are many great American skiers, and many great places to ski in N.A. Generally, a lift pass is less expensive in Europe, because of the "public" nature of the government. As far as lodging goes, the US does not have a monopoly on decadence. You can just as easily spend $1000/night in Austria or Switzerland (Arlberg Hospiz, St. Christoph; The Gstaad Palace; Badrutt's, St. Moritz; anyplace in Zurs [fucking umlaut]). The same Porsche in Germany and the USA costs more in Germany. To me, living in europe is cheaper than living in the USA. Living well is cheaper in America.

[Toby]

You can't buy a decent burger in Europe.

They (used to) make pretty damn decent burgers at the Krazy Kangarüh in St. Anton. Anyway, I think I'll take European food + lack of burgers over American food anyday. Mmmm, Berner würstl und pommes frites. Gülaschsuppe mit brot. Wiener schnitzel. And good call schindlerpiste, kaiserschmarrn. I've made that for brekky quite a few times this year.

[seatosky]

To me, living in europe is cheaper than living in the USA. Living well is cheaper in America.

I think the point was that in Europe, skiing is often just a part of living, whereas in the USA, skiing a part of living well.

[schindlerpiste]

Thanks for your interpretation. I don't necessarily agree with you. To me, skiing is a part of living. Driving a Cayenne to the mountain is living well. If I lived in a shit hole in the valley, had to wash dishes at GMD, and wax tourist's sticks, I would still ski at Alta. If there's a will, there's a way. I have usually found rich europeans to be much more decadent (and pompous) than rich americans (NY and SoCal. excluded). This is just my opinion based upon being married to a fairly well-off German, and living in der fatherland for 2 years.

[cj001f]

If there's a will, there's a way. I have usually found rich europeans to be much more decadent (and pompous) than rich americans (NY and SoCal. excluded).

So the decadently rich in the bay area, seattle, sun valley, aspen, denver, atlanta, nashville, chicago, boston, philadelphia, Washington DC or Florida aren't as louche as those in NY & LA?

HA!

[seatosky]

Thanks for your interpretation. I don't necessarily agree with you. To me, skiing is a part of living. Driving a Cayenne to the mountain is living well. If I lived in a shit hole in the valley, had to wash dishes at GMD, and wax tourist's sticks, I would still ski at Alta. If there's a will, there's a way. I have usually found rich europeans to be much more decadent (and pompous) than rich americans (NY and SoCal. excluded). This is just my opinion based upon being married to a fairly well-off German, and living in der fatherland for 2 years.

Hey, I agree with you that skiing is part of living - and obviously most who post on this board consider it the same way. But for the average North American, skiing is a decadent pasttime that has to take a lower spot in the priority list, and often doesn't ever happen for many people. I think a lot more 'average europeans' ski (at least the ones living in mountainous countries) than 'average' North Americans, and part of this is probably caused by the differences in the 'business models' of ski resorts in the two places.

[schindlerpiste]

Hey, I agree with you that skiing is part of living - and obviously most who post on this board consider it the same way. But for the average North American, skiing is a decadent pasttime that has to take a lower spot in the priority list, and often doesn't ever happen for many people. I think a lot more 'average europeans' ski (at least the ones living in mountainous countries) than 'average' North Americans, and part of this is probably caused by the differences in the 'business models' of ski resorts in the two places.

Now, I gottcha. I agree.

cj: Maybe, I was a bit hasty, and I apologize for speaking out of turn; however, I have always found certain Manhattan/LA blue bloods to be ...let's say extremely self absorbed.

[iceman]

There's no essential difference in lift ticket prices between the U.S. and Europe. The prices are different but both are arrived at via a formula that combines expenses with what the traffic will bear and allows for some profit if everything works out right.

Nobody in America is getting rich running lifts, although some are getting rich selling real estate next to the lifts. I imagine that insurance costs are a large part of the price difference between here and there, and I would not be surprised to find that meal and hotel taxes subsidize lower ticket prices in Europe, especially in areas owned by the "commune". Collecting taxes and paying them directly to a corporate entity is simply not done in the U.S. unless the company is named Halliburton or Bechtel.

[davidof]

but prolly safer than depending on a single owner (or a single company). Or not ?

I think you've made a huge generalisation about the structure of ski resort ownership and governance for the whole of Europe which is in reality very varied. In France the public/private model (SEM) has been predominant but there are also resorts where land, lifts, infrastructure the lot are owned by a single company or individual and this is also the case in Switzerland, for example the Schatzalp in Davos which has changed hands in the last few years and may, or may not, restart operations.

To get back to your point, the commune of Artouste in the French Pyrenees was unable to save its local slopes from closing last year. I can name another dozen ski areas that have suffered a similar fate in France over the last decade and just having the CdA or someone involved in the resort doesn't mean everything is rosy. The Compagnie des Alpes employs just as many MBA's as Intrawest and lift infrastructure will only get upgraded if there is a benefit for the company. Lets take a look at the rosy hand of CdA who recently bought a large shareholding in Serre Chevalier - one of the actions of this year has been the scrapping of the Monetier lift pass (around 150 Euros for the season for a local), you now have to spend around 800 Euros on a whole area pass. Given that Monetier has most of the interesting terrain not exactly a good thing from a rider perspective.

[Jumper Bones]

Hey, I agree with you that skiing is part of living - and obviously most who post on this board consider it the same way. But for the average North American, skiing is a decadent pasttime that has to take a lower spot in the priority list, and often doesn't ever happen for many people. I think a lot more 'average europeans' ski (at least the ones living in mountainous countries) than 'average' North Americans, and part of this is probably caused by the differences in the 'business models' of ski resorts in the two places.

that was exactly what I was trying to say, but I used waaaaaay too many words.

also, and here I'm talking out of my ass...a substantial part of North American business strategy has been the concept of chains - chain restaurants, movie theaters, fast-food, video rental, car dealerships, etc...so it's not really surprising that we also have chain ski companies like Boyne and the American Ski Company, etc.

[verbier61]

there is one rather significant factor that people are overlooking here - how much skiing is a part of the western european culture, and how much it is NOT a part of the average american culture. Most Euro countries have some rather substantial mountain ranges, which pretty much dominate several of the countries where some of you starting this thread live. Switzerland and Austria, from what I understand, are all mountainous. Florida and Texas in the US are not at all. Look at where American and Canadian population centers are - there really aren't very many people who live in and around mountains at all (with the exceptions of Denver and Salt Lake City).
Additionally, look at how many europeans have been exposed to skiing, and how many Americans have. Europeans generally get government-mandated vacation time, and considering the sizes of most euro nations are smaller than many of our states, it's relatively easy to get from one side of the country to the other (assuming you don't have mountains at your backdoor already). Not so in America - we don't get gov't-mandated vacation holidays, and generally it can be rather expensive to get a family from say Virginia to mountainous areas like Salt Lake City. So, as a consequence, the average American might only get a week of vacation from his employer if he's lucky, and why would he want to take his kids skiing? I mean they might rather go to Disney World or to see their family for Christmas or something like that. But the average time your average joe can get to "the slopes" is just a couple days a year, if that.
Also, look at whom your average skiing American is - more or less white, from or in a fairly middle to upper class, usually an independantly-minded person who doesn't mind differing from the social norm and not being where everybody else is (at the beach, shopping in the malls, at the NASCAR races, etc). How many American skiers are black? How many are latino? Shit, how many are even female (before people get on me about this, consider the male-female ration in ski towns)? Not many.
And here's a story - I'm in Oklahoma right now, and I've been here for about 6 months now for work, just about to go home. We had a rather substantial cold front move through wednesday, which dropped temperatures substantially - 20 degrees within 10 minutes (I was outside in it when it happened). Temps have been faily low the last couple days, with daily highs in the 60's F. Anyway two days ago I was at a convenience store and there was a guy who came in, all swaddled up in long-sleeve jeans, a leather jacket, a scarf, a beanie hat, and gloves, and he was still red in the face like he'd walked in from it being 30 below outside. He kept raving about how COLD it was, and how he hates the cold more than anything else in this world. Anyway it was in the 50s outside, nice and cool, and I'm standing there in my shorts, flip-flops, and hoodie dumbfounded, but there's your average non-skiing American right there, who isn't pissed that it's been above 90 degrees here every day for the last 5 months straight like I am, and who isn't happy when things cool down for just a couple days.
Anyway the fact is that in the average American culture, skiing is a microcosm of it, and most people don't do it all that often. Generally speaking most good jobs are not located anywhere near ski towns, but are consolidated to cities hundreds or thousands of miles away from the mountains. And skiing and everything involved in the attempt to participate in it is so expensive that most Americans don't do it that much, maybe getting a few chances in a year or even a lifetime. Geography and culture here are significantly different than they are in europe, so this ownership issue is really an apples-to-oranges thing.

huh.. I'm not sure I agree. With the exception of switzerland, big yurp countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, not to mention UK) have a skiable mountain/flat country rate very similar to US. And in all these countries, skiing culture is a microcosm exactly like in US

[verbier61]

I think you've made a huge generalisation about the structure of ski resort ownership and governance for the whole of Europe which is in reality very varied. In France the public/private model (SEM) has been predominant but there are also resorts where land, lifts, infrastructure the lot are owned by a single company or individual and this is also the case in Switzerland, for example the Schatzalp in Davos which has changed hands in the last few years and may, or may not, restart operations.

To get back to your point, the commune of Artouste in the French Pyrenees was unable to save its local slopes from closing last year. I can name another dozen ski areas that have suffered a similar fate in France over the last decade and just having the CdA or someone involved in the resort doesn't mean everything is rosy. The Compagnie des Alpes employs just as many MBA's as Intrawest and lift infrastructure will only get upgraded if there is a benefit for the company. Lets take a look at the rosy hand of CdA who recently bought a large shareholding in Serre Chevalier - one of the actions of this year has been the scrapping of the Monetier lift pass (around 150 Euros for the season for a local), you now have to spend around 800 Euros on a whole area pass. Given that Monetier has most of the interesting terrain not exactly a good thing from a rider perspective.

OK. Mine was certainly a generalization (ore generalisation? who knows). But a generalization that applies to the large majority of large yurp resorts. Or not?

[verbier61]

... or in other words...
La grave, cham, 2alpes, 3val, etc etc (F)
zermatt, verbier, st moritz, crans, engelberg, andermatt ect (CH)
St Anton, etc (A)
courmayeur, thuile, cervinia, gress, alagna, dolomiti etc (I)
AFAIK, don't have a single owner

[davidof]

OK. Mine was certainly a generalization (ore generalisation? who knows). But a generalization that applies to the large majority of large yurp resorts. Or not?

erm what was your point again?

[aspenskibum]

So the decadently rich in the bay area, seattle, sun valley, aspen, denver, atlanta, nashville, chicago, boston, philadelphia, Washington DC or Florida aren't as louche as those in NY & LA?

HA!

/\/\/\/\bump that b/\/\/\/\

[Plakespear]

huh.. I'm not sure I agree. With the exception of switzerland, big yurp countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, not to mention UK) have a skiable mountain/flat country rate very similar to US. And in all these countries, skiing culture is a microcosm exactly like in US

True. And here's another thing to consider- the sheer size of the USA. While the amount of time for someone living in the farm country of France, say the Bordeaux region, the trip to the alps or Pyrnees is probably a half day's drive. Compare that to the time it would take to drive from, say, Kansas City or Minneapolis to get to the Front Range.

How many cities with a population of 250,000 or greater are within a six hour drive of Verbier? And how many are within that distance from Telluride? Or Sun Valley? Or Banff?

But culture is still the biggest difference. In the US skiing is percieved as something for rich people. In Europe, it's more like, say, golf. Pricey, but still something Everyman can do a few times a year. Of course in Norway, skiing is considered youe BIRTHRIGHT!!!

[Lostinthetrees]

yes.
So, said once again....

Nothing like throwing gasoline on the fire.

Threadkiller.

[davidof]

... or in other words...
La grave, cham, 2alpes, 3val, etc etc (F)
zermatt, verbier, st moritz, crans, engelberg, andermatt ect (CH)
St Anton, etc (A)
courmayeur, thuile, cervinia, gress, alagna, dolomiti etc (I)
AFAIK, don't have a single owner

First of all you have to remember that big ski areas in Europe are bigger than those in the US in terms of acres of runs, km of runs total vert. As I mentioned above there are smaller European ski areas which are owned by a single company or individual. So you are not really comparing like with like.

In the French section above you've also mixed large linked ski areas such as the 3 valleys with individual resort so obviously the ownership is going to be different. The 3 valleys is essentially 4 communities (St Bon, Les Allues and St Martin de Belleville, Orelle) and a number of ski resorts: Courch, Meribel, Mottaret, Les Menuires, Val Thorens etc so ownership is going to be varied and different.

French ski resorts essentially fall into 3 generations.

1. Traditional mountain villages: Megeve, Chamonix, les Artouste - here skiing developed as an adjunct to other activities
2. Courchevel / Chamrousse - developed post war by 'state' actors
3. Resorts built ex-nihilo by a single promoter

Most big French resorts fall into the third category. They were built as part of the Plan Neige elaborated from the mid to late 1950s. The predominant model, as I have already said, was that of the private/public partnership or societe d'economie mixte (SEM). This is a corporate structure that lets a private promoter and state bodies form a partneship. For example, Flaine, the SEM called the Societie d'amegement Arve-Giffre (SAG) was owned 48% by the Boissonas family and 52% by the local communities. Involving communities meant that the SEM had a triple AAA rating for borrowing (a local community cannot go broke) and also gave access to state development funds. Important as the startup costs - road, buildings, lifts are high before any money is made selling accommodation.

Now the French mountains have a long period of habitation, since Roman times there have been mines and agriculture spread in the middle-ages. This meant that the SEM would buy land held by local landowners. This was usually compulsory purchased at prevailing agricultural rates. The SEM would usually give a franchise to build and run lifts - normally 30 years. This was often the responsibility of the local communities although with many communities facing finanacial difficulties a state actor in the form of the C3D (later spun off into the Compagnie des Alpes) stepped in to run a number of lift systems. If we look at other ski areas we see the same model: les Arcs and Roger Godino, la Plagne and Robert Legoux, Tignes and Val Thorens and Pierre Schnebelen. These people were businessmen and real estate promoters. The purpose of French ski resorts (and I guess those in the US) is for real estate promoters to sell properties in areas that otherwise would not be attractive to owners. In the case of the SAG ownership passed to Meribel Alpina on Eric Boissonans death and since 2000 to the Compagnie des Alpes (who also own the Chamonix-Grand Montets lift system). Meribel Alpina of course being the company set up by Scott Peter Lindsay to develop the Allues (Meribel) valley. Of course much of the ski resort itself is in private hands.

Does this make for better running of French resorts than American single owners? There are certainly a range of interests. For the community there is the need for jobs and a stable business environment for local businesses and landowners. There is the government and his local representative, the prefect, who will ensure laws such as the Loi de Montagne and security are respected as well as certain planning law. There are investors and developers who want to see a return on their money. In the end I suspect descisions are made based on the monetary return they will bring, much like in the USA or Canada and that the biggest investors and landowners have the most influence in those decisions.

The la Grave lift system is owned by Dennis Creissels, who bought it after the original company went bankrupt. Of course the DMC system used at la Grave was invented by Creissels. I suspect that if Mr Creissels wanted to sell the lifts to les Deux Alpes there would be little the community of la Grave could do to stop him. However I'm told, despite frequent rumours to the contrary, that les Deux Alpes (which originally had a single owner) doesn't want to buy and that Creissels is committed to the backcountry aspect of la Grave. What happens on his death is an interesting question. We've seen big changes at Rossignol in the last year where the Boix-Vives children didn't want to run France's leading ski maker and it was sold to Quicksilver.

[supercastor]

Thanks for this M. davidof!
very interesting stuff indeed...

Just two points :

Denis Creissels is hard to see through, but what he does say is that he wouldn't sell the lift whatever the price. Plus he's building an hotel on the actual parking lot, so I think he falls in the "I make money with land that wouldn't be worth it without a lift" category.

Artouste will be back on the resort map this year, I don't know the details of the deal (heard that Altiservice had made an offer to the commune) but you'll find them on skipass.