I said I was done but I guess I'm not. The definition of "overdeveloped" most of you seem to be using seems to really be that you just don't like it, that is it doesn't meet YOUR ethical or aesthetic conditions. But overdeveloped actually has some objective definitions. One would be development in excess of the ability of the infrastructure to provide for its needs, i.e. water, electricity, trash disposal, etc. There is no evidence that any of those conditions exist at Deer Valley or Canyons. Another definition would be development in excess of the economic capacity. There is no evidence of that. Not a lot of unsold or foreclosed homes in this case. They may not be occupied by their owners much of the time but they are owned and maintained. So I think it is fine for you to say you don't like on-mountain development but it is simply incorrect to say that it is overdeveloped by any objective criteria.
The second point I would make is that those of you who seem to be arguing against the on mountain development in Park City by saying the development should be at the base or on "flat" land and implying that that would be more environmentally sound are really just wrong. From an environmental standpoint the flat lands, which are usually also the wetlands, are more environmentally important. Sure the mountains are more beautiful but they are not really more environmentally important. Thus one could argue that flat land and especially wetland development is more environmentally harmful.
I live in Park City but I certainly don't own a home in Deer Valley or Canyons. Given that I live here year round though and have 4 horses and a big house, I am pretty sure my environmental impact is more significant than a house in Deer Valley that is hardly ever occupied. Other than aesthetic considerations I don't see how high density (they are on .25 acre or less lots), tastefully constructed homes and lodges, and they are tastefully constructed out of local and natural materials NOT concrete monoliths, that happen to be built on the mountain, on PRIVATE land, are any different than similar construction at the base or in the valley. I would have a different opinion if it was public land or environmentally sensitive wetlands or the development was being done without proper infrastructure or economic support but that is not the case.
So I get that some of you just don't like it but I don't concede that you have brought any significant environmental or economic reasons to the table as to why it shouldn't be done as it has been done in Deer Valley.
And I find it laughable that you argue that you have a right to "spend your money wherever you please" while at the same time denying that other people have a right to spend their money wherever they please, i.e. on a home on the mountain at Deer Valley.
So in fact the point is not "quite obvious" and I think a quick count of the replies in this thread indicate that there is not in fact any consensus that the Park City area is overdeveloped.
Really, semantics? Just because there is demand for something does it make it right? I am sure if someone builds high-rises on the slope side of ski resorts there would be some f-cked up zillioner that would buy it for his teenage "avid skier". Does it make it right? It is sad that ethic and esthetic values are now replaced with monetary values. It is sad that everything is being increasingly monetized. It is sad trying to justify the fact that environment already damaged by neglect and overuse and abuse can be overused and abused all over again just because somebody established precedent of such behavior before us.
And before anybody rush to remind me that I have a choice of where to spend my money and not to come to "their mountain" and to "their town", let me remind them that I have right to spend my money wherever I please and also I have right to express my opinion about (over)development of our environment.
Deer Valley is successful business, Deer Valley is good place to spend some time and money, Deer Valley is fun place to ski. Deer Valley employs lot of people.
Also, Deer Valley is utterly overdeveloped piece of land. Canyons - same.
And the fact that a lot of people share this opinion should make us all pause and think what would it take to move forward in environmentally responsible manner, rather than argue about the point that is quite obvious.