EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › The cost of terrain parks and the future of man made terrain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The cost of terrain parks and the future of man made terrain - Page 3

post #61 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toecutter View Post

 

Like I said, it's not entirely true when you say, "I can't think of anything that is less about 'enjoyment of physical motion' than learning new park and pipe tricks." You're right that competition and ego boost are a component of doing tricks, but doing a trick successfully inherently feels good. 

Well, in the full statement I made, I was saying that the pain (i.e. physical pain involved in falling and failing) of learning a new trick is far from physical enjoyment.

 

But I think the second part is about right and I'll agree. Too many different people out there with different views and motivations to paint as broadly as I did.

post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post


The entire discipline of freestyle is based on show, competition and entertainment (read: ego). I can't think of anything that is less about "enjoyment of physical motion" than learning new park and pipe tricks (i.e. smashing your body into hard, icy snow over and over again). There are a lot better ways to get enjoyable physical motion on one or two planks. But, it's all about learning that trick and showing off to friends, new friends and members of the opposite sex. So, naturally, the bigger the feature and trick, the better.

BSmeter.gif

 

That isn't what it is about for most amateurs.  It is very similar to the adrenaline rush folks get skiing powder and steeps.  For many it is simply about FLYING... and it is best when the landing has minimal impact.  This is why the landings of table top jumps (and hald pipes) are steep.  Nothing in all my skiing experiences tops popping off a moderate kicker and flying 80 feet long, 30 feet in the air, and gently touching down on the sweet spot of a steep landing ramp at balls out speed..  Doing a trick does as much to help you maintain body position and awareness as it does for showing off, assuming anyone is even looking.  In fact, I HAVE to do something with a lot of air or I'm not going to stick the landing.  You're going a lot faster when you land than you were when you took off hahaha.  Anyway, that was the rise i got out of skiing freestyle.  Ballet, HATED IT!.  Moguls?  Much better on softer days than icy ones :-)

 

Had mad respect for people good at ballet.  That wasn't me, and it HURTS a lot more to fall going slow than it does to fall going fast. 

post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

BSmeter.gif

 

That isn't what it is about for most amateurs.  It is very similar to the adrenaline rush folks get skiing powder and steeps.  For many it is simply about FLYING... and it is best when the landing has minimal impact.  This is why the landings of table top jumps (and hald pipes) are steep.  Nothing in all my skiing experiences tops popping off a moderate kicker and flying 80 feet long, 30 feet in the air, and gently touching down on the sweet spot of a steep landing ramp at balls out speed..  Doing a truck does as much to help you maintain body position and awareness as it does for whoing off, assuming anyone is even looking.  In fact, I HAVE to do something with a lot of air or I'm not going to stick the landing.  You're going a lot faster when you land than you were when you took off hahaha.  Anyway, that was the rise i got out of skiing freestyle.  Ballet, HATED IT!.  Moguls?  Much better on softer days than icy ones :-)


Flying/jumping is a completely different thing from doing complex tricks. We're not necessarily talking about soaring 30 feet in the air and needing something to do to maintain form. We're talking about spending hours upon hours perfecting relatively small tricks on progressive park features.

 

As I conceded above, I'm sure some people simply enjoy it. But I'm equally sure that the BIG infrastructure that's at the heart of this thread is driven almost entirely by competition, ego and exhibition. 

post #64 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post


Flying/jumping is a completely different thing from doing complex tricks. We're not necessarily talking about soaring 30 feet in the air and needing something to do to maintain form. We're talking about spending hours upon hours perfecting relatively small tricks on progressive park features.

 

As I conceded above, I'm sure some people simply enjoy it. But I'm equally sure that the BIG infrastructure that's at the heart of this thread is driven almost entirely by competition, ego and exhibition. 

Big can also simply be really cool.  Diving towers are big and expensive infrastructure for a pool, that can also be really fun for people who aren't competitive divers to use.

 

Big tramps, big skateparks, etc.  -- fun, and again for the big skateparks, just as one example, safer than those with really tight transitions.  (Big trampolines can also be safer than smaller ones, there is a theme here.)

post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Big can also simply be really cool.  Diving towers are big and expensive infrastructure for a pool, that can also be really fun for people who aren't competitive divers to use.

 

Big tramps, big skateparks, etc.  -- fun, and again for the big skateparks, just as one example, safer than those with really tight transitions.  (Big trampolines can also be safer than smaller ones, there is a theme here.)

 

Difference being, that only very good snowboarders benefit from HUGE features. Anyone can go leap off a high dive, but not anyone can go flying over a massive gap without injury.

 

Huge jumps, halfpipes and parks are not inherently safer than small ones. The only reason they would be safer is because the people using them are more skilled.

post #66 of 88

This is a lot like comparing street skating (ledges, stairs, kickers, and so forth) to vert skating, pools, bowls, and half pipes.  The injury rate for street per capita is ginormously higher than the injury rate for vert... simply because falling on a steep slope results in a glancing blow with sliding where falling on dead flat ground is a head on solid impact.  There are rare occasions where a vert skater will bottom out in a bad crash and miss the transition landing at the bottom.. but that is EVERY fall for a street skater.  Bigger is often safer in that regard as long as were landing on the ramp and not the flats.

 

Example of bottoming out!

post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

One big positive thing I see with terrain parks is that "kids" aren't as likely to create their own features, and/or pop out of nowhere with things they find interesting on the slopes.  

 

Edit:  Ironically Northstar posted that their 22' super pipe  is open today. 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151363208499443&set=a.158592854442.113946.74373009442&type=1&theater

 

Speaking of openings (Heavenly's obviously doesn't measure up to NSs :) )

http://blog.skiheavenly.com/2013/01/18/18-halfpipe-opening-day-11913/?cmpid=ET3567207&et_rid=354135270

post #68 of 88

that naked dude sure got some air but definitely didn't stomp the landing. 

post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Posaune View Post

At Stevens Pass you are, indeed, not allowed to ski it unless you've gone through safety training and bought a season pass specifically for the park (only $5, but another hoop to jump through).  It's completely fenced off from the rest of the mountain and the entry is manned.  This park takes up one entire former intermediate hill, both the terrain and the lift.

Just thought I'd mention Stevens changed things this year. No hut to watch the safety video, no $5 pass, no fence blocking access to the terrain. Also the park features start lower on the slope so you can traverse over from Skyline without taking a double black chute. A lot of the time they don't need to run the slow Brooks chair. Also they cut some new glades in the trees beyond Brennan's trail

Given that Stevens is a really busy ski area with only 1125 acres, it makes sense to keep as much of the terrain open for everybody. What remains to be seen is whether there are more injuries without the safety training.
post #70 of 88
post #71 of 88

Does anyone doubt that snowboarding is a phase for many young people who do it? Once they get to a certain age they'll decide it's not cool anymore, and stop. And they'll be replaced by other teenagers, but probably not as many, leading to a decline.

 

It's obvious to me that most snowboarders do it because it's easier than skiing. They would never have the tenacity to start skiing and go through the long slow process of learning. A lot of them probably couldn't even learn to ski if they wanted to, they just don't have what it takes.

 

And very few of these jackasses have what it takes to actually learn to handle the half pipe, or even most of the platforms, ramps and rails.

post #72 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlogiston View Post

Does anyone doubt that snowboarding is a phase for many young people who do it? Once they get to a certain age they'll decide it's not cool anymore, and stop. And they'll be replaced by other teenagers, but probably not as many, leading to a decline.

 

It's obvious to me that most snowboarders do it because it's easier than skiing. They would never have the tenacity to start skiing and go through the long slow process of learning. A lot of them probably couldn't even learn to ski if they wanted to, they just don't have what it takes.

 

And very few of these jackasses have what it takes to actually learn to handle the half pipe, or even most of the platforms, ramps and rails.

 

I doubt all your logic.

35 years old

Been skiing for 30 years

Been snowboarding for 11 years

Been telemarking for 20 years

 

Powerdays, tight glades, backcountry, and mogul fields - skis

Powerdays, wide open glades - snowboard

Lean times of snow with packed powder - snowboard on the groomers

If the knees feels real good - a few laps on the teles

 

It is all about options to have fun in the snow.

 

I guarentee young snowboarders have what it takes to ski.  They may try it later in life as I have with snowboarding.  Snowboarding was not around in the early 80's like it is today so I did not have the option to start out on snowboards.

 

---------------------

 

I enjoy watching these "park rats" as I ride up the lift.  Reminds me of my youth when hangovers went away quickly and injurys healed much much faster.  So what if ski areas take up some runs for features.  The average ski area probably around 80 or so runs.  On average I see most ski areas take up 3 runs for terrain parks for 3 levels of terrain features.  No biggie.  Plenty of terrain left over.

 

The monster halfpipes and big jumps make alot of money for the ski areas when they host competions.  Go to any x-game event.   All those spectators are paying for lodging, food, beer, and merchandice.  No business throws money away.  It costs manhours and resources like water and fuel to build these items.  If they don't make money they don't build them. 

 

Skiers complained in the early 80s about grooming machines.  Well groomed runs is what brings in the non-season pass holders to the mountains and pays for the lions share of the resorts profits. 

post #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlogiston View Post

Does anyone doubt that snowboarding is a phase for many young people who do it? Once they get to a certain age they'll decide it's not cool anymore, and stop. And they'll be replaced by other teenagers, but probably not as many, leading to a decline.

 

It's obvious to me that most snowboarders do it because it's easier than skiing. They would never have the tenacity to start skiing and go through the long slow process of learning. A lot of them probably couldn't even learn to ski if they wanted to, they just don't have what it takes.

 

And very few of these jackasses have what it takes to actually learn to handle the half pipe, or even most of the platforms, ramps and rails.

 

No. That's ugly and wrong.

post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlogiston View Post

It's obvious to me that most snowboarders do it because it's easier than skiing.

 

Snowboarding poorly is easier than skiing poorly...in that the former will get you down a wider variety of terrain.  Good skiers on the other hand seem to me to have an easier time getting down difficult terrain than good snowboarders.

post #75 of 88

Some SEROUISLY out of touch old people in this thread who are clearly just haters who would mock and ridicule ANY change to their precious mountain, whether is be Snowboarding growing in popularity years ago or Parks growing in popularity more recently.

 

It's like I can tell how old some of you are by your posts.   

 

Sorry everyone doesn't want to ski down the hill exactly like you do...

post #76 of 88

At my hill the big air was rarely used last year.  Considering the high cost of building it, it's not back this year.  Instead this season we have more terrain with rails and smaller jumps.  We now have three parks (beginner, intermediate, expert).

post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

The deal is that pipe is actually kind of dead. Most kids are interested in slopestyle type park features.
 

That's what I'm seeing too. The kids seem to prefer the same things they can do with skateboards during the summer; such as ramps and rails.

post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by kauffee View Post

I'm a 7 Springs passholder and I'm not seeing this whole "the parks are keeping the mountain in business." Like roundturns, I very rarely see anyone on the Superpipe.  I was told it costs $400,000 to build, so that's pretty much in line with Trekchick's number. But more than the money is the opportunity cost in terms of snowmaking. After last week's melt, 7 Springs wasn't even close to fully open this weekend yet still charged the $74/day holiday rate and still had the guns going to keep the superpipe and slopestyle jumps coming along.

 

I have no problem with the regular terrain parks, and 7 Springs has some nice ones that get solid use.  However, it's still a small percentage compared to the overall number of skiers on the mountain. So I'm still questioning how much money it actually brings to the resort. For one thing, teens and 20-something park rats don't have any money. How many $12 hamburgers and $10 bowls of chili can they buy? A large portion of them can't even legally drink the overpriced beer. Their parents are footing the bill, and my guess is that a place like 7 Springs might get more families to come if they consistently covered the whole mountain with snow rather than building that superpipe as a promotional stunt.


Why do people continue to perpetuate hollow stereotypes? First off, many teens do make money of their own, and without a family to support and a lot of bills to pay, they're more free to spend it than many adults. Second, teens that don't have much money of their own do tend to have parents. And teens tend to spend plenty of money, often more recklessly than adults. So while a smart adult might say the hell with $12 burgers and pack a lunch, a teen may just go ahead and buy it. While a portion of them can't drink, the portion of twenty-somethings that can seems to make up the majority of most crowded bars in the country.

 

Major markets and companies have been targeting teens for years. The idea that they don't matter because they don't have an annual salary and large family is rather antiquated.

post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlogiston View Post

Does anyone doubt that snowboarding is a phase for many young people who do it? Once they get to a certain age they'll decide it's not cool anymore, and stop. And they'll be replaced by other teenagers, but probably not as many, leading to a decline.

 

It's obvious to me that most snowboarders do it because it's easier than skiing. They would never have the tenacity to start skiing and go through the long slow process of learning. A lot of them probably couldn't even learn to ski if they wanted to, they just don't have what it takes.

 

And very few of these jackasses have what it takes to actually learn to handle the half pipe, or even most of the platforms, ramps and rails.


1. If you got paid for every piece of unfounded speculation in that post, you'd have enough for a pretty nice ski trip!

 

2. Snowboarding isn't all that easy to learn either. There's a lot of tumbling, bruising and looking like a damn fool involved. Newsflash: It's a 50/50 choice and there's no one reason why most choose one over the other. Some because friends and family do one or the other, some because they think one looks cooler, some because they woke up one day and decided to try one, and on and on.

 

I never had any interest in either skiing or snowboarding growing up and didn't have a family that skied. Then, at age 13, my best friend decided to buy a snowboard on a whim. We started at local hills at schools and water towers and it was the most fun I ever had. I've been doing it for the past 20 years and have moved to the mountains as a result. Never had much interest in going back and trying skiing because there's really been no need.

 

3. I'm pretty sure nearly every able bodied child and adult "has what it takes" to learn skiing. It's not brain surgery, no reason to feel all superior about yourself.

 

4. You sound pretty angry and aggressive. It's just a forum about a hobby; lighten up and enjoy yourself.

post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlogiston View Post

Does anyone doubt that snowboarding is a phase for many young people who do it? Once they get to a certain age they'll decide it's not cool anymore, and stop. And they'll be replaced by other teenagers, but probably not as many, leading to a decline.

 

It's obvious to me that most snowboarders do it because it's easier than skiing. They would never have the tenacity to start skiing and go through the long slow process of learning. A lot of them probably couldn't even learn to ski if they wanted to, they just don't have what it takes.

 

And very few of these jackasses have what it takes to actually learn to handle the half pipe, or even most of the platforms, ramps and rails.

 

No, snowboarding is not a 'phase', any more than skiing is. I'm in my 30's, I learned to ride long after learning how to ski. Now I do both, and instruct both. Do you actually open your eyes when you're on the mountain? You should probably do so, and you'll see riders in their 30's, 40's, and 50's all over the place. Is snowboarding in a decline? Yes, but not because anybody has outgrown it. It is in a decline because skiing has caught up with it in ability (like park/pipe).

 

Its obvious to you that most snowboarders do it because its easier than skiing? Well then, you are completely ignorant. As I said, I instruct both skiing and riding, and can tell you from years of experience that the first week of snowboarding is infinitely more difficult than the first week of skiing. It is frustrating, maddening, and more than anything else, PAINFUL. After the first few days riding, a person's entire body is in pain. Shoulders, arms and core are rubber from pushing themselves up off the ground dozens of times. Elbows, wrists, butt, knees are bruised and battered from smashing them into the snow over and over (if none of them are broken). Quads and core are exhausted and aching from holding a much more unnatural and straining position than is used in skiing. They would never have the tenacity to start skiing? Okay, why don't you go try one day of snowboarding, O Almighty Ski God, and then repeat that statement. Matter of fact, I'll make you an offer. Come to Stowe, and I'll give you a first day riding lesson personally, during my free time. Then we can assess that statement in person.

 

Very few snowboarders have what it takes to really handle a halfpipe? No kidding, that's why people make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year doing it competitively. If everybody could do it, it wouldn't be a big deal. Can you ski the Hahnenkamm at 80+mph? Oh shucks, you can't? Shocking. And "platforms" and "ramps"? Thanks for reinforcing your complete and utter ignorance of the topic.

 

It seems pretty obvious that you like to put yourself on some kind of a pedestal because you're a skier, and you think that inherently makes you special out there on the slopes. It doesn't. There are many riders whose raw ability on snow would make your head spin.

post #81 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voriand View Post

 

I doubt all your logic.

35 years old

Been skiing for 30 years

Been snowboarding for 11 years

Been telemarking for 20 years

 

Powerdays, tight glades, backcountry, and mogul fields - skis

Powerdays, wide open glades - snowboard

Lean times of snow with packed powder - snowboard on the groomers

If the knees feels real good - a few laps on the teles

 

It is all about options to have fun in the snow.

 

I guarentee young snowboarders have what it takes to ski.  They may try it later in life as I have with snowboarding.  Snowboarding was not around in the early 80's like it is today so I did not have the option to start out on snowboards.

 

---------------------

 

I enjoy watching these "park rats" as I ride up the lift.  Reminds me of my youth when hangovers went away quickly and injurys healed much much faster.  So what if ski areas take up some runs for features.  The average ski area probably around 80 or so runs.  On average I see most ski areas take up 3 runs for terrain parks for 3 levels of terrain features.  No biggie.  Plenty of terrain left over.

 

The monster halfpipes and big jumps make alot of money for the ski areas when they host competions.  Go to any x-game event.   All those spectators are paying for lodging, food, beer, and merchandice.  No business throws money away.  It costs manhours and resources like water and fuel to build these items.  If they don't make money they don't build them. 

 

Skiers complained in the early 80s about grooming machines.  Well groomed runs is what brings in the non-season pass holders to the mountains and pays for the lions share of the resorts profits. 

Whoa!  No one mentioned snowboarders in the context of terrain parks.  I had to read this post more than once to make sure I understood what you were saying and all I can say is........Really?  

I'm actually seeing a lot more variety in ages for snowboarding, and skiing. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by focker View Post

Some SEROUISLY out of touch old people in this thread who are clearly just haters who would mock and ridicule ANY change to their precious mountain, whether is be Snowboarding growing in popularity years ago or Parks growing in popularity more recently.

 

It's like I can tell how old some of you are by your posts.   

 

Sorry everyone doesn't want to ski down the hill exactly like you do...

I hope you're not thinking that this was the intent of the OP.  

From my perspective, I keep seeing the massive features being built and the massive maneuvers that are being performed and I can't imagine that it can go bigger.  Then......out of nowhere.......THEY GO BIGGER!  eek.gif

Is there a limit? 

post #82 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

This is a lot like comparing street skating (ledges, stairs, kickers, and so forth) to vert skating, pools, bowls, and half pipes.  The injury rate for street per capita is ginormously higher than the injury rate for vert...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeaN5CN8-NM

 

Yep, at the start of this video, Buck Lasek, a pro skater, explains why he wanted a big-ass backyard bowl, in large part to make it safe enough to do tricks on. He is of course talking about a feature with curved walls, and as you note this is different from, say, a bigger set of stairs or as JoeUT noted a big gap.

post #83 of 88

Another observation from "back in the day" is that the freestyle jumps didn't take up nearly as much real estate as the fixtures required for the race teamsrolleyes.gif  It's kind of hypocritical to get all up in arms about losing a moderate intermediate run to some boarders when the race team closes off the sweetest black/blue run on the mountain for half the day then leaves it all rutted out.

post #84 of 88

Coincidentally  KNTV, NBC in San Jose, just had this feature story on their  evening news.

 

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Terrain-Park-Jump-Safety-Concerns-187991391.html

 

Note that $14M lawsuit that resort lost was way back in 2007 so one would suspect most resorts with these parks have since been shocked into being careful about what and how they make these things.   But like many dangerous issues people have a tendency to stick their heads deeper in the sand over time.    I'll speculate this bigger park air trend may be pushed behind the scenes by the few expert park users at resorts that probably have more influence around resort marketing types including some that actually work at resorts.  Thus when discussions occur about how to design park features, some experts may blubber all over resort marketing management that BIG is likely to draw more users even though that is not their honest agenda.

post #85 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_SSS View Post

... one would suspect most resorts with these parks have since been shocked into being careful about what and how they make these things...

Resorts were careful about how they make parks well before 2007.  Parks do get built with safety in mind.  Park designers do an extremely good job of this.  I think resorts already to a pretty good job of letting people know they're responsible for their own safety in the park, but basically anyone dumb enough to think there is a way to make jumps completely safe is pretty dumb.

post #86 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

The season of 2011-12 was a low snow year for our region, yet Northstar put a ton of its resources into making the Shaun White Half Pipe, which was a feature to be seen for sure.  The estimated cost by a random source was that it cost nearly 1/2 million dollars to build, which doesn't include the upkeep.  

 

Each year we see bigger and bigger features in our local terrain parks, in the X-Games and with that comes bigger ideas on maneuvers from the pros and the recreational park skiers. 

 

Also, we are seeing some terrain being built into smaller features for the up and coming park skier who isn't quite ready for the big features.

 

That being said........My mind wonders

How much bigger can they get?

How much more can they do? 

Is this endless, or will there be a point where they say, "That's big enough."?

 

What is the real cost? 

Terrain, resources, liability....... 

 

*note: this is not a criticism, just an observation and middle aged pondering.

1) No large ski area operator (e.g., Vail Resorts or Talisker) is going to embark on a huge terrain park without first going to consultants and figuring out the potential return.  In your example, $500,000 comes out to 5,000 riders spending $100 per day at the resort or 10,000 spending $50, etc.  So the cost is minimal if the Shaun White Half Pipe attracts people who will come to use it on days they would not normally ride, like when the snow sucks because it hasn't snowed in three weeks.  The benefits also include the ability to host televised events, people being filmed, and other things that gives the resort "free" advertising and $ .  Also, there may be summertime use for these facilities for those who MTB.

2) How much bigger can they get?  That depends upon the economic benefit.  Canyons installed a 1 mile terrain park and it is getting great use.  I saw a much smaller facility at Bear Valley a couple of weekends ago, and it was empty.  I'll bet just the ability to advertise these facilities increases skier days, just like a hotel having a swimming pool or spa that few people use.

3) How much more can they do?  That depends if the, "If you build it he will come" philosophy is accurate.  There are already grooming cats with special park and pipe attachments being sold, and the big name resorts all have them trying to out do each other.  If watching people do 720's at Heavenly while going up a crowded lift increases the skier experience, they will build more of this stuff thinking it will attract people to the resort.

4) What is the real cost?  Not much to the larger resorts where image is important.  They will recoup the economic cost quickly.  They also have enough terrain to stick in a park or two or three.  Any resort over 2,000 acres of ski able terrain can find room for these things.   The impact to the environment is minimal since the trails already exist.  Liability?  I am no lawyer but these things can't be more dangerous than an east coast WROD or skiing through the trees or skiing around tree wells on a powder day.

 

I am not sure why terrain parks and pipes are so popular, but they are.

 

 

post #87 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickg View Post

 

If you look at the terrain at our local resorts, Holiday Valley, Seven Springs etc.  They have taken slopes that used to be great for skiing or gave some access to some trees, and they change it into a terrain park.  Can I still go ski there?  Sure, but it is no longer what I use to ski or like to ski.  It seems every year or two, another slope is converted but no new terrain is cut to give back to the oldtimers who "built" the place, that results in less terrain for those of us who have no interest in the park, but we pay the same price or higher for a ticket.  I do understand why they do it, I just don't like it.  That was the point I was trying to make.  It is inevitable that the Park Rats are going to be taking over sooner rather than later as they mature and some find jobs in the ski industry.

 

Like I said before, I am not sure if I am happy or sad that I won't see where this is all headed in 25-50 years.

 

Rick G

 

What great slopes have been lost at Holiday Valley?  Other than the little rail area at the bottom of Mardi Gras, the parks are pretty empty whenever I'm there.  Ski the parks, because they're empty!

 

Let the kids have their parks.  I don't really care for them too much, but I can see the draw.  

 

One thing I've noticed is how the park staff go and build these huge impossible features... most of which go unused by all but a VERY small few.  At Bristol Mountain, the ratio of kids in the beginner park to the big one is about 10:1.  If I were a resort manager, I'd build a giant beginners park to attract the most kids (and of course their parents!!!).

post #88 of 88
I'd heard that Burton paid for the water for Breck's park. The figure was 85 million gallons but that can't be right? I do know that our pipe a couple years ago took 900,000 gallons for snow.
As an update, there is about to be a reality tv show based around terrain park builders. Images were filmed this season should be out soon.


Mountain Movers: Local snow park builders to star in reality TV show


http://www.moonshineink.com/sections/sports-wrap/mountain-movers-local-snow-park-builders-star-reality-tv-show
SPT, Snow Park Technologies is out of Lake Tahoe
Will be shown on Nat Geo channel.

http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/21/mountain-movers-designing-extreme-winter-sports-courses/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › The cost of terrain parks and the future of man made terrain