Simple Question: Why don't more resorts follow the same model of how Mount Snow and Keystone keep all of there terrain parks centrally located to one section of the mountain? Why do some resorts insist on sending people back and forth from each side of the mountain to switch between terrain parks? I feel like when all the terrain parks are in one location it not only make the park skiers and riders happy, but it also make the non- park skiers and riders just as happy because all those types of skiers are out of their way. Hope i don't sound like a jerk, just wondering the logic.
Jan 19 2018 4:05PM
i mean, it's going to depend on a lot of things. layout of the mtn, snowmaking (and retaining) ability in certain locations, having attention on the park(s) but not having them mixed too much with gaper runs, etc. plus, mtns love being able to say "5 different parks!" on their ads and stuff
also, i dont think it's fair to compare most places to keystone or mt snow. those are mtns that have gone balls deep to please park riders. at a lot of places the park crew won't get nearly as much resources or real estate to work with as they do at places like that. carinthia is dope but you can imagine that covering the entire peak in park features doesnt help the mtn attract a big portion of consumers: the majority of people that don't care about parks
Jan 19 2018 5:11PM
I actually would say more larger mountains follow this model. Consolidation of parks and having most of your park services by 1 lift is more standard these days at the larger resorts. Mainly it's to keep the dirt bags separate from the 1%.
Mount Blow took it a bit far. They should cut that shit in half. Waste of money and resources.
Jan 19 2018 8:47PM
My pet peeve is when parks are put in an area that has no good terrain leading up. Bridger Bowl, where I ski for example is a fantastic mountain but to ski the park you have to go to the lower mountain which is super flat. I often imagine it would be awesome to be able to ski some dope terrain then hit the park on the way to the lift. I had a blast skiing Grand Targhee because in one run you could hit wide open powder, trees, and then a jump line all in one lap. I shouldn't really complain since i'm super lucky to Bridger all the time, but I feel like it would just make so much more sense to put a park higher on the mountain. It would also keep all the hooligans away from the families and beginners.
Jan 19 2018 9:20PM
a lot of places just get some shitty run that nobody really wants to ride because it's a shit area.
3/4 of our parks are on the flattest, windiest part of the mountain, above tree line.
amazing on sunny warm days with a firm snow pack but other than that we constantly struggle with weather and speed.
Jan 21 2018 12:39AM
Jan 21 2018 1:07PM
A lot of smaller mountains use the one or two trails that might kind of work that nobody likes. Even then, it might not have been skied by more than 10 people in 875 years, but as soon as you put a park on it, somebody will bitch on social media about how that was their favorite trail, and some how none of the other trails can compare to the memories. Even though they probably only went down it 3 times in their lives. People just hate parks.
As mentioned sometimes it has to do with separating ability levels. There will be a nice extra small/small park near some beginner terrain. Different mountains have different reasons. Some as basic as "we've been building our parks there for 15 years and we're too lazy to change it.
Sometimes it's fun to cruise around a mountain a bit to check out different parks. Sometimes it's nice to just hot lap the fuck out of them in one zone. I don't generally care too much either way.