or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Revelstoke - Facts or Rumours - Please share
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Revelstoke - Facts or Rumours - Please share - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
The chance of winning a lottery is one in a few millions. Making a business successful may be one in a hundred.

So, it's not that hard to predict failure. You chance of being right is one out of a hundred. Predicting who will NOT win the lottery? No brainer.
The really funny part of all that is that my first job after doing my MBA was head of marketing and product development for one of the largest lottery corporations in Canada. For those of you north of the border, some of the games I developed were Lotto Super 7, Sport Select, and that devious little 'mind-fck' The Plus (people hated me for coming up with that one). If people would ask me if there were any tricks to winning, I'd say "Want to know how to improve your odds, ten-fold? Buy ten tickets."
post #32 of 46
It would be great for them to ignore the real estate play and just worry about the skiing. From anyone I talked to that skied it last year they raved about it's potential. Now this isn't from the type of skier that can't name a single groomed run at Whistler but can describe in great detail every inch of the off piste skiing on both Whistler and Blackcomb.

I look forward to skiing it this winter regardless.
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by shirk_007 View Post
It would be great for them to ignore the real estate play and just worry about the skiing.
Unfortunately, the two go hand in hand, especially in the case of small, ad-hoc developers like the group doing Revelstoke. It's the real estate sales that fund the development of the resort. When that stalls (as it has), and with the tightening of the financial markets, we'll see the expansion of Revelstoke grind to a halt very quickly. That won't prevent it from operating... just don't expect to see any great development master plan unfold. I predict the mountain will end up being like Whistler in the days before Blackcomb and the village... big terrain and potential, with spotty facilities and amenities, albeit a lot less 'rustic' than Whistler used to be.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by exracer View Post
Unfortunately, the two go hand in hand, especially in the case of small, ad-hoc developers like the group doing Revelstoke. It's the real estate sales that fund the development of the resort. When that stalls (as it has), and with the tightening of the financial markets, we'll see the expansion of Revelstoke grind to a halt very quickly. That won't prevent it from operating... just don't expect to see any great development master plan unfold. I predict the mountain will end up being like Whistler in the days before Blackcomb and the village... big terrain and potential, with spotty facilities and amenities, albeit a lot less 'rustic' than Whistler used to be.
I'll bet thats fine with all the locals.

You mean W/B has more than just lifts for amenities? We upload from lot7 at Base 2 and bring a bagged lunch. I guess it's nice to get a warm coffee from Glacier lodge and not have to pee in the trees all the time.
post #35 of 46
I skied there last year, and if it stays the same (with the new North Bowl lift that was installed over the summer) it doesn't need anything else. The lift system is already better than Kicking Horse. More "amenities" will just mean higher ticket prices for things that will probably not improve the skiing. They just need a lower road traverse exit for the South Bowl and it would open up a few hundred more acres of tree/glade skiing (the old cat terrain) without needing to put another lift in. I don't think anyone who bought homes at inflated prices over the last few years will be disappointed with the skiing if they fail to add another 15 lifts. It's just the speculators that will get hosed, not the real skiers. IMHO the place is already worth the hassle to get to.
post #36 of 46
Not for nuthin, but this TR is worth checking out
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ght=Revelstoke
post #37 of 46
It's interesting that Revelstoke is a feature story in almost every ski-mag on the shelves these days.

Even this thread has attracted decent attention.

Once you begin generating phrases such as: "longest lift-served vert in North America", "potential build-out at 10,000 acres", "only resort with lifts, cat and heli-skiing", you get press.

The avid skiers I know have little awareness of Panorama or Kicking Horse - which have been around for years. But, they're already taking about a trip to Revelstoke.

I also liken it to Jackson Hole and Sun Valley - away from anywhere. Yet, neither has trouble with attendance.

The biggest factor in Revelstoke's buzz: big snow! Finding untrammeled pow (esp. inbounds) is a challenge at any resort. Revelstoke conjurs visions of huge, pristine snowfields, with few combatants. That's a siren hard to resist - even for the ski-mags.

I'm not saying Revelstoke will be a financial success. It could tank badly, and the current owners could get pasted. Also, real estate speculators could get burned.

But, the mountain's not going away. Neither are the lifts.

Whether now or in 10 years, via current ownership or not, Revelstoke has the basics of a remarkable mountain.

I'd go there happily, just for the skiing and a few beers.
post #38 of 46
Revelstoke will always be of interest to the hard core skiers, I'm not disputing that, and the terrain and snow is exceptional (at least the top half). There's no issue there.

Terrain will only get you so far, though, as far as attendance and financial success goes. Look at Whistler, as an example. Great terrain, great snow (when they get it), but it limped along for decades because it had no infrastructure or amenities, and depended on Vancouver skiers (and hard cores 'in the know' from beyond, who were willing to make the journey) in order to stay in business. It wasn't until the village was built and the appeal was broadened that it became a destination on everyone's map.

Revelstoke is in a similar situation to Whistler in the early days except it lacks the advantages of a large nearby population center or proximity to a large international airport, both of which Whistler has. The hard cores will make a point of visiting to check it out, but a large ski area can't survive just on that.

It's a small, cash poor development group that is trying to expand the area, but they won't be able to do it because real estate sales have crashed and the financial markets have tightened. Without the type of base village and amenities that Whistler developed, it will never become more than a blip on the mainstream radar (a blip with fantastic skiing, mind you), and without mainstream numbers it won't be financially viable. The fact the owners are currently trying to sell the resort to a larger developer should sound everyone's warning bell.
post #39 of 46
I wouldn't plunk down investment dollars in Revelstoke, especially now.

But, if I loved it as a destination, I might consider a 2nd home condo - depending upon prices.

I lived in Whistler in the early years ('72 to '75). It was bare and stark, with few amenities. They were the best years of my life.

As you said, for hard-core skiers, the mountain alone will do. Unlike early Whistler, Revelstoke has, at least, a small town.

Regardless of what happens to current developers, the resort could grow based on merits, vs condo-mania development hype.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Look at Whistler, as an example. Great terrain, great snow (when they get it), but it limped along for decades because it had no infrastructure or amenities, and depended on Vancouver skiers (and hard cores 'in the know' from beyond, who were willing to make the journey) in order to stay in business. It wasn't until the village was built and the appeal was broadened that it became a destination on everyone's map.
I'm probably a bit out of my league to argue with a consultant in ski area developement.

But, was it really the village? Or was it the marketing?

I first heard of Whistler back in the 80's (I think). It didn't catch me as a hardcore area. It caught my attention as the largest. I was an intermediate skier and couldn't care less about diverse terrain. I just wanted lots of it! For someone who skied in the 200' vert midwest, the longest vert and the acreage was all so irresistable.

That's what Revelstoke was trying to market too! And it did generate a lot of buzz. If SOMEONE manage to build it up and run a smooth operation, why couldn't it be the next Jackson Hole or the next Sun Valley (or Aspen)???
post #41 of 46
When Joe Hussain of Intrawest purchased Whistler in the 80's, he injected big capital on lifts, the village and land development. That's when Whistler exploded.

They saw the basics: great mountain, major market in Vancouver, airport within 2.5 hrs. and threw down the wallet.
post #42 of 46
Revelstoke is a killer mountain. We did a day trip there from Kicking Horse in March. It was a Saturday and as you can see in my photos, there was almost nobody there on a spectacular day.

I can't wait to get back there and hit it after a storm. And as someone already pointed out their lift system is already better than Kicking Horse. Snow Rodeo top to bottom is an insane brutally long steep fall line screamer. I can't think of another groomed trail anywhere that burnt my legs out like that.

Here's a link to a few photos I took: http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k2...view=slideshow
post #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by carvemeister View Post

Here's a link to a few photos I took: http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k2...view=slideshow
Great Pics! I'm sold.

Both the terrain and snow look perfect.

Sunshine?

I was told the sun never graced the slopes of Revelstoke (snowing too much).
post #44 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
Sunshine?
I was told the sun never graced the slopes of Revelstoke (snowing too much).
We were determined to pick the absolute worst, most miserable day in order to avoid the crowds. We succeeded but next time we'll try it when the weather doesn't suck so bad.
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
I'm not saying you're wrong. I enjoy reading your analysis about Revelstoke. But why does Sun Valley, Steamboat or even Aspen took off? None of them are near any big gateway airports, nor big population center. If you could pick out a winner like that, you don't need to get paid by "consulting", you'll be rich and enjoying skiing in the next hot resort.
Those three resorts were built in an entirely different era, they were built into what they are today over many years and were able to add infrastructure as skier numbers warranted. KH, Reve and Tamarack have all invested massive amounts of money into infrastructure with the idea of selling real estate, not attracting big numbers in skier visits. It would appear that business model isn't working at the moment.
post #46 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by exracer View Post
In other news.... there is some very interesting information floating around about the potential turnaround of Fortress Mountain, in Alberta. That won't be of interest to anyone other than local skiers, but the news, when it's announced, will be big.
I spoke too soon. I was led to believe the Fortress deal was done, but it's in the proposal stage only. Bummer. Either way, it will be at least a couple more seasons before they can get operational again, either limping along (current ownership) or a concept that is very exciting (with the new ownership). Time will tell.
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 › Revelstoke - Facts or Rumours - Please share