Battle - Mega Resorts vs. Ski Areas

[Core2]

It seems like we all either go one way or the other. Some prefer the smaller hills with unique local vibes and others prefer the mega resorts with awesome amenities. I've been to quite a few mega resorts and while I always had fun, they all left me feeling like something was missing. At smaller ski areas, even if I am there for just a day, I always feel immersed in the energy of the place and overall more connected to the operation. This is huge for me as these experiences have been some of my best memories and are the reason I keep skiing. I just don't seem to get that connection at the mega resorts. The "small town feel" of ski areas and how they bring people together towards a common goal of happiness is what I love about them. I honestly feel like mega resorts try to create this authenticity and fail for the most part.

What do you guys think?

 

[Michael Kane]

My last trip was to Ski Cooper, Sunlight, Powderhorn and Loveland. Best one I have ever done. Put me in the small area camp

 

[newboots]

Small areas. You run into your friends, the lodge is filled with racer families while the lift line is non-existent, strangers start to know you, and the homemade chili is superb.

There are friendly people in the big resorts, but they never feel really welcoming. I like to feel at home.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I've only been snowboarding/skiing since about 2000 but I'm a smaller resort kinda gal. Bromley is fabulous, small 65 trail mountain where all trails lead to the base and you just can't get lost. Even mount snow with its 85 trails is small and we really get to know everyone, karl, manager in ski ship, nick my bootfitter, the ski check guy, my IPA bartender dude in upstairs bar, Chelsea the bartender at the summit bar I guess anywhere can seem smaller when you go there enough but i love that mom and pop feeling you get from the 25 trail resorts. Don't get me wrong i love mammoth, LOVE but i think newboots says it best. My home mountain butternut is like family, ski shop manager penny, demo guy Dimitri, my bud in the repair ship Nathan. It's like the cheers bar, that place where everyone knows your name. I just love that small feeling and the camaraderie, you can't put a price on that

 

[KingGrump]

Usually the large resorts have terrain more suitable to my taste. So I have no issue skiing the large resorts to access the terrain I liked.
However, I also like the vibe and feel of the smaller areas. For me, Taos is a good blend of the two. Small area feel with killer terrain.

 

[jmeb]

I'm with @KingGrump -- terrain of bigger resorts, vibe of smaller areas. That'd be a great thread: smaller resorts with great terrain/snow.

 

[Bad Bob]

Core2, I agree with your premis to an extent. Ski areas let you absorbe the experience and be part of it. The megas give you a quality product and diversity you just seem to be a lift ticket to them

 

[graham418]

I'm always for the small resort vs the big corporate ski village. Its always a better experience. And there are a lot of big hills , with lots of terrain that are still a small town experience. People are friendlier, the vibe is different. much more my style

 

[Monique]

Usually the large resorts have terrain more suitable to my taste. So I have no issue skiing the large resorts to access the terrain I liked.
However, I also like the vibe and feel of the smaller areas. For me, Taos is a good blend of the two. Small area feel with killer terrain.

I like this answer. If I'm choosing my home mountain, I'm going for something with varied terrain, lots of trees, steeps, different aspects, etc. Hence, Breck.

But if I'm visiting a place, anything will do, and a smaller place is easier because I don't experience so much FOMO - at a big place that I don't know well, I always wonder if I "should" be somewhere else. I had a lot of fun skiing Beaver in Utah with my cousin late in the season a couple of years ago.

 

[at_nyc]

Usually the large resorts have terrain more suitable to my taste. So I have no issue skiing the large resorts to access the terrain I liked.
However, I also like the vibe and feel of the smaller areas. For me, Taos is a good blend of the two. Small area feel with killer terrain.

If I'm skiing on my own or hooking up with this gang, Taos is great.

But if I'm skiing with other friends of lessor confidence/skill, Taos would be too much. Beaver Creek or Breckendridge would be a better choice.

I like both kind just fine, depending on my mood. So there's no this vs that for me. They're all good.

The only thing I don't care for, is a mountain that charges a lot, has a maddening crowd, and doesn't really have the breath of terrain to keep me entertained. Many eastern mountains are kind of like that. That's why I haven't skied in the east the past 2 years.

 

[Philpug]

I prefer ski areas over ski resorts. Mad River Glen and Arapahoe Basin are two of my favorites. We plan on skiing more at Mt. Rose this coming season, an area that has a A-Basin type vibe. Jackson Hole, as big as it is, does not overwhelm you with the resort feel.

 

[John O]

Definitely more of a fan of ski areas than mega-resorts. I just like the vibe better. Not to say I won't ski at a mega-resort and enjoy it, but if I was required to choose between the two...

As an example, one of my favorite places I've skied when I've been traveling was Whitewater, BC, which is just about as anti-resort as you can get. But it's a super fun mountain.

 

[Bad Bob]

There is always the happy middle, the HUGE ski area. Places like Snowbasin, Alyeska, or Crystal Mt. Emese terrain that straighten just about anybodys hair, but when the lifts stop spinning you'll probablly be heading somewhere else. They aren't mega resorts, but it is not their fault. When I have one of those in the neighborhood, that is normally my go to choice.

 

[David Chaus]

Red Mt is a good example, I think, of a small vibe feel combined with world-class terrain, as well as having plenty of vertical and acreage. There's pretty much nothing après in town in Rossland, so everybody hangs out at Rafters, but it's still way uncrowded compared to the Mangy Moose (Jackson). Red has steeps like at Jackson, trees and glades everywhere, and pretty rustic old-school infrastructure. I mean, they still have the Red chair, with it's erector set-type lift towers. Or the lift terminal shack on the Paradise chair looks like it's been there 50 years and never been painted. Groomers? Ha! We don't need no steenkin' groomers! Eh?

Red is the place where I feel like there is the most terrain with the least infrastructure.

 

[noncrazycanuck]

Castle gives it a good run. Give it a try (hopefully on a none windy day)
Keep you head down on the Blue and your face saver up on the Red

 

[Sibhusky]

I'm partial to places without crowds.

 

[TonyC]

I'm usually in the large resort camp due to quality of snow and/or terrain. But I try to find the exceptions to that generalization.

That'd be a great thread: smaller resorts with great terrain/snow.

I can supply that list.....or what I would call more relevant, uncrowded resorts with great terrain/snow. I came up with this list when the topic was raised on Epic, refined it some with input on that thread.
Canada: Apex, Castle, Red Mt.
Montana: Lost Trail, Discovery
Idaho: Brundage
Wyoming: Grand Targhee
Utah: Powder Mt., Solitude, Sundance
Colorado: Sunlight, Wolf Creek

The uncrowded criterion is quite stringent, generally based upon direct observation combined with a ballpark estimate of skier visits. There are some good local areas where low lift capacity will make them crowded on weekends or powder days just from that local population base. Bridger and Montana Snowbowl are good examples. Mad River Glen is the classic example of this.

The areas on this list tend to have either extensive challenging terrain or high snowfall. If you have both, you will probably attract enough people to not make the elite level of uncrowded. Being uncrowded is mainly an accident of geography. Either it's extremely remote (Wolf Creek, Discovery) or it's an interesting area on an absolute scale but overshadowed by nearby higher profile areas (Targhee, the 3 Utah areas).

 

[nay]

I agree that vibe matters a lot over a long season. But big places on powder weekdays can have exceptional vibe and all day grins while a smaller place that got the most snow in a given storm can turn into a cluster.

In reality, I think proximity to a major metro area is the biggest factor rather than faux base villages. On the one hand, this provides access to a much longer lift served season, and on the other hand, bro brah is never far away.

But a long season with resources to provide a high quality early season is key. Otherwise, you are looking at a four month season instead of upwards of eight months. That's huge, and it comes with compromises, but it would be shocking to have the season end in early April and I'll take the downsides when the offseason is about the same length as most places season.

 

[Cheizz]

Just confused by the semantics here. In Europe, we have ski areas (by which I mean: network of runs and lifts - the ski infrastructure and terrain if you will, examples: Three Valleys ski area), within those lie villages in which one can stay (examples: Méribel, Lens Menuiers, Courchevel, Val Thorens, etc. All part of the Three Valleys).
What exactly do you guys mean by 'resorts'? Here, it means an all-inclusive mass accommodatioin, mostly associated with sunny destinations around the Mediterranian....

 

[pais alto]

Usually the large resorts have terrain more suitable to my taste. So I have no issue skiing the large resorts to access the terrain I liked.
However, I also like the vibe and feel of the smaller areas. For me, Taos is a good blend of the two. Small area feel with killer terrain.

I'm partial to places without crowds.

Combine these two, and that's pretty close to my response. Places like Taos, Silverton, Discovery, and Whitefish do it for me. Big resorts on uncrowded days are cool, but the vibe at smaller places with good terrain is best.