or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › New Ski Area in BC: 6,418 vertical feet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Ski Area in BC: 6,418 vertical feet

post #1 of 100
Thread Starter 
Just in from the Seattle Times:

"The resort would include the fourth largest vertical drop of any ski resort in the world, 1,945 meters, about 6,418 feet. "



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...iresort08.html
post #2 of 100
Here is the link to the local paper:

http://www.revelstoketimesreview.com/
post #3 of 100
Skied the cat operation there two days last year. Very amazing terrain.
post #4 of 100
Damn, when does that open? Anyone have any pic's of the mountain/terrian?
post #5 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev259
Damn, when does that open?

ahhh kev - its not looking good:

City will do everything in its power to ensure that the massive ski resort, projected to be larger than Whistler Blackcomb when it is completed later in this century, goes ahead
:
post #6 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev259
Damn, when does that open? Anyone have any pic's of the mountain/terrian?
post #7 of 100
Thread Starter 
"when it is completed" Means that it will be built out later this century, not that it will open then. It will probably proceed in phases. Imagine making a resort bigger than Whistler in one fell swoop! What kind of capital would it take to do it all at once?
post #8 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheft
"when it is completed" Means that it will be built out later this century, not that it will open then. It will probably proceed in phases. Imagine making a resort bigger than Whistler in one fell swoop! What kind of capital would it take to do it all at once?
check out http://www.cityofrevelstoke.com/edc/skihill.htm for details though the files are huge.

Seems a bit big at full build out but wow. Thing is too far from Vancouver and too far from Calgary of course far is relative.
post #9 of 100
For a look at the current Ski Powder Springs trail map, check the link on the www.catpowder.com home page. It looks great. The weather has to be better than Whistler.

I wonder how long it will be for an opening with lodging at the base and lift service of the 6400 vertical potential. 2006-07? Then the challenge will be getting there. It must be at least a 4-5 drive hours from Calgary. Central BC should have a bigger airport for easier access to MacKenzie, Panorama, Kicking Horse, and the others.

It is great to see new ski areas planned. There's another big vertical/acreage mountain in Montana planned, called Bitterroot Resort @ Lolo Mt. (Near Missula I think).
Some trails are already cut... www.skibitterrootresort.com
post #10 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericfelker
It is great to see new ski areas planned. There's another big vertical/acreage mountain in Montana planned, called Bitterroot Resort @ Lolo Mt. (Near Missula I think).
Some trails are already cut... www.skibitterrootresort.com
yeah, REALLY great, unless you happen to LIVE THERE.

Maclay's "plan" is no more than a plan. nobody has mentioned approving it. he's been trying for about 15 years.

most of us locals DO NOT want the place built.

and we'd appreciate it if yayhoos like you would quit shouting about it as if it's a done deal. :
post #11 of 100
Gonzo, I've been a skier for about 40 years and if you met me you wouldn't call me a yayhoo to my face. Just because I don't hike and skin up for my turns, does not make me a yayhoo. Why are you opposed to planned development? I want a new destination resort in the US, so I don't have to go abroad to Canada or Europe for big mountain skiing.

The reality is that the development of lift-served ski areas has positively impacted the economy and lives of many communities. Of course the pristine wild mountains and valleys such as Vail, Big Sky, and Whistler have been changed forever and there are some negative impacts. I would suggest that a rising tide lifts all boats and it is better to float with the tourism/service economy than to build a temporary dike. I currently live in one of the largest tourist area in the world, Orlando, FL. The tourist dollars have a huge positive impact on the economy and locals' lifestyles.
post #12 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
yeah, REALLY great, unless you happen to LIVE THERE.

most of us locals DO NOT want the place built.

and we'd appreciate it if yayhoos like you would quit shouting about it as if it's a done deal. :
Hey Gonz,

Did you go buy your own trout stream, like Ted Turner told all of you to do; or are you trying to tell the rest of us what to do with land that belongs to ALL of us?
post #13 of 100
Land that belongs to all of us and 2,900 acres of the privately-owned Maclay Ranch.
post #14 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike



most of us locals DO NOT want the place built.

:
Not sure I understand the logic?

If I were a wino, & a winery was built next door, I'd consider that a good thing.
If I were sex crazed, & a local strip club opened up, also a good thing.
If I am a skier, & I had a whole new mountain!


If I had all three?, Somebody pinch me!
post #15 of 100
eedjits.

felker, I've been skiing nearly 40 years. so what? big friggin' deal. I'm not interested in comparing swords. I'm talking about the sheer idiocy of the type of growth Tom Maclay is proposing.

the problem isn't that Lolo Peak has bad terrain. it has good terrain, very good terrain.

the problem is (1) what Maclay wants to do is build a Vailish place, not a skil hill; (2) you already may ski at Lolo Peak and its surrounding ridges by simply hiking, snowshoeing or skinning up; and (3) Maclay's "development" will absolutely ruin the value of all farmable and grazable land that lays downstream of the "development" in Carlton Creek's drainage.

before you start trying to tell ME what should happen in MY neck of the woods, why don't you try getting some facts first.

and as to feallen et al., YOUR slice of Lolo National Forest remains whatever of it you happen to use. given your distance I'd say your claim is vastly remoter than mine or my friends here in the immediate area. pees oaf, mateys. :
post #16 of 100
Thread Starter 
While not quite as militant as gonzostrike, I have to agree with him in principle. When someone from far away tells me about how I should welcome the destruction of my way of life, I don't like it too much. I live in a much more heavily urbanized area than he does, but I can fully understand how he does not want the mountains ruined with lifts and condos and crowds. I love to ski at Whistler, but I cringe every time I go there. They have raped a beautiful valley and two mountains. I know that I seem like a hypocrite for feeling this way and being a skier, but so be it. Let the locals decide if they want to join the urban crowd. The NF lands do belong to all of us, but some of us are a lot closer to them than others and it impacts us every day, not just on vacation.
post #17 of 100

Some more pictures from the area

I found these on google...looks like a gorgeous area. Much like all of Beautiful British Columbia.

http://www.dustyveideman.com/more_scenics.htm
post #18 of 100
post #19 of 100

Looks promising but.....

The positives:

The development of a major resort would have a significant economic impact on a town that has been in decline for some years.

The snow is reported to be really good (witness a couple of the threads on cat skiing and interior BC skiing).

It would add an enormous resort on the shoulders of three existing ski concentrations (Banff and Columbia Valley) (Sun Peaks and the Okanogan resorts) (Whitewater and Red Mtn. accessible by a secondary highway and ferry due south of Revelstoke). This would make it possible to do a number of different circuits and easily have three or four weeks of quality skiing (can't wait for retirement now).

The negatives:

Any spill-over of development south into the Nakusp and West Kootenay region will impact on a quiet and charming area of rural BC. Sprawl will probably stretch out along highways 1 and 23(?).

There will be increased pressure to develop Upper Arrow lake into a resort lake.

More people--more pressure on an important ecological region.

The problems:

The resort will be on land claimed by 3 separate major tribal groups, some of whom claim exclusive right to the lands. A recent Supreme Court decision means that the developer and the BC government will have to enter into meaningful consultation with the affected bands.

Revelstoke is a long way from anywhere urban. The closest regional airports (Kelowna and Kamloops) are probably two hours away by car. The Trans-Canada highway is a pitiful excuse for a major road (we salivate at the thought of a road built to the standards of U.S. interstate highways, but there is little prospect of anyone coming through with the funding for that project).

There are several other expansions (Kicking Horse) and plans for new resorts (Jumbo Glacier, Valemount) which are going to try and become the same destination resort that Revelstoke aspires to.

Conclusions:

I will start saving up to by a condo, but I'm not signing any commitments just yet.
post #20 of 100
The 'flap' that was discussed in the Revelstoke paper over the last month or two seemed to involve two new quads that are scheduled to be put in over on Mount McKenzie to begin the expansion up the mountain. One is on the agenda for completion for the '05-'06 season, and the developer had sent a warning to the city previously saying they were having doubts about the installation of the lift. ....It now appears it was just a political move to get all parties 'off dead center' and amp up the momentum a project like this needs to sell some real estate to fund the expansion. Whatever the actual motives were, they did get the ball rolling, and the city of Revelstoke is out of the ski hill business with the impression that the local hill will have a new lift opening up new terrain on the mountain for next year. Progression beyond that is likely tied to the financial successes of the operator's real estate venture.

I feel there is a good chance for success strictly because of the remoteness issues previously mentioned. There isn't much chance it will become another Whistler, so it should attract people willing to put up with the inconveniences, for the rewards a little isolation provides. They have already had considerable comment locally about people from the increasingly crowded Canmore/Banff area taking a long hard look at Revelstoke.
post #21 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
and we'd appreciate it if yayhoos like you would quit shouting about it as if it's a done deal. :
If you're going to be pissed off at someone, it should be Al Gore...after all, he invented the Internet. Or maybe, those two humps Lewis and Clark...as for Bitterroot, I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath to ski it. :

powsniffr
post #22 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericfelker
I currently live in one of the largest tourist area in the world, Orlando, FL. The tourist dollars have a huge positive impact on the economy and locals' lifestyles.
As a former resident of central Florida I can tell you about the downside of the tourist dollar. The Florida I grew up in has been destroyed. Local's lifestyle? you mean hideous traffic, overcrowded beaches, destroyed weytlands, ruined fishing, toll roads, endless sprawl. Yea, its great! that's why I now live in Colorado.

I am amazed at the gall of some people.
post #23 of 100


Mt. Mackenzie is center left right above town.

I think it might take a bit out of Kicking Horses future as it just gets so much more snow. It also would have a better mix of blacks blues and greens than KH. Another point its similar to Whistler in that the bottom half of mountain can get high temps. I was there in JAn last year and the bottom half of mountain was a sticky fog feast. Now I;m sure that Red was getting rain.
post #24 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheft
While not quite as militant as gonzostrike, I have to agree with him in principle. When someone from far away tells me about how I should welcome the destruction of my way of life, I don't like it too much. I live in a much more heavily urbanized area than he does, but I can fully understand how he does not want the mountains ruined with lifts and condos and crowds. I love to ski at Whistler, but I cringe every time I go there. They have raped a beautiful valley and two mountains. I know that I seem like a hypocrite for feeling this way and being a skier, but so be it. Let the locals decide if they want to join the urban crowd. The NF lands do belong to all of us, but some of us are a lot closer to them than others and it impacts us every day, not just on vacation.
exactly. the notion Felker and feallen prop up -- that the national forests belong to ALL OF US -- is bogus. I have no more interest in telling the Monongahela National Forest residents in WV how to "develop" their area than does someone in Hawaii who would NEVER travel to WV.

what happens to Lolo Peak is much more an issue for those of us in Missoula County, Montana, where Lolo Peak is situated. we're the ones who live here. we will have to deal with "luxury golf/ski resort" arsewhypes and their "tourism dollars" that further render artificial an already artificial economic "growth" in the Missoula area.

stupid fuggin' maroons, all they care about is their own ski ventures. sorta like the mtn bike folks I know who beg for Wilderness areas to be opened to MTBs. it's all about THEM and THEIR desires, to hell with others. stuid phockers.
post #25 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clayton
As a former resident of central Florida I can tell you about the downside of the tourist dollar. The Florida I grew up in has been destroyed. Local's lifestyle? you mean hideous traffic, overcrowded beaches, destroyed weytlands, ruined fishing, toll roads, endless sprawl. Yea, its great! that's why I now live in Colorado.

I am amazed at the gall of some people.
what's wrong with you, Clayton? are you against "progress"?
post #26 of 100
Gonz,

Your point is well put and taken, but get ready; because western Montana is destined to the fate of rocky mountain Colorado.

People are no longer at odds with the elements and now revel in the 'controlled challenge' the area brings with it. Granted; 99% of them would head 1500 miles south if they had to live like the poineers did, but only the 'purists' opt for such an existence.

Unless you can convince someone with a bank account similar to Bill Gate's to petition the government to sell all that real estate to him and let him lock it up for posterity, the beaurocrats are going to find a way to make a buck off of it! ...I wish it weren't true, but it is happening where I live at a blistering rate, and it won't take long for 'progress' to show up at your doorstep too!
post #27 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
what's wrong with you, Clayton? are you against "progress"?
It's a simple case of NIMBY. No one who lives near a ski area wants any further expansion. Yet everyone wants the classic "wilderness" ski vacation. They just don't want it in their backyard. Won't be long before skiing is like driving to work in a crowded urban environment. No new development or expansion of existing ski resorts will mean more crowded slopes. In 10 years everyone will be lamenting about the "good old" days back at the turn of the 21st century when the slopes weren't crowded and people remember when lift tickets were only double digit$. That's the price of progress.
post #28 of 100
jeez, I wish I was so "realistic" and "enlightened" as to merely accept, laying down, the prospect that we NEVER can have sensible use of the earth.

you people are a big part of the "good old days" problem that you pretend to lament.

I'm not talking about retrogrouchiness or NIMBYism. only a fool would equate wise sensible land use with NIMBYism or Luddism.

I'm sure none of you has spent any considerable amounts of time here, either.

So, precisely what is your base of experience and/or knowledge upon which you posit your "edifying" remarks, trying to persuade me to just "accept it"?
post #29 of 100
Dude, SnowBowl sucks, bring on the new joint.

I'll hook you up with a 12 pk of PBR if you hook me up with the couch, yo.
post #30 of 100
change it to "refill your party pig at KHole and buy you food & beer at Last Run Inn after skiing" and you might have a decent offer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › New Ski Area in BC: 6,418 vertical feet