I think ski resort architecture is mostly designed for the point of sale hence perhaps it tries too hard, or perhaps ultimately not hard enough, to be novel and eye catching rather than to fit comfortably into a larger composition. Hence ski resorts tend to stand out in sharp contrast to their surroundings, whether those be the settled architecture of New England ski towns or the mountain West. Having been involved in the design and production of some indescribably ugly resort architecture, which was exactly what the client sought, because he presumably had a pretty good understanding of what would sell, I have had a good viewer's seat to some of this. These must have appealed to someone. They were designed to sell and some one bought them so I guess the developer knew very well what he was doing. I don't think anyone involved, except perhaps myself and a few others, consciously felt that what they were producing was ugliness, rather they felt assured that what they were making had a certain validity because the crowd, meaning those skiers who would buy the stuff, were more or less applauding.
For what its worth, it seems to me that a lot of what has been done in recent years, especially all that timber,log and stone that you find in the West represents an attempt to reconcile what is built with its surroundings, both the landscape and the historical/cultural milieu. Big Sky it seems to me is a great illustration of this. Unfortunately some newer buildings which look as if they might possibly belong there are in stark contrast to some really butt ugly earlier stuff. Even so I see around the area a lot of ostentation that stands out like a sore thumb in spite of the loveliness of the materials.
Bottom line, its us.