Snowbird: Disney vs. Nature

[dloveski]

A rollercoaster at Snowbird? Really? Next, a ferris wheel? Or Pirates of the Caribbean? I guess God's natural beauty is not enough anymore----people expect amusement.

https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13952239

So sad and maybe that's why Americans are becoming obese--instead of hiking and exploring (for free) folks want to pay big bucks for a thrill ride.

Why even come to the mountains? Folks wanting a rollercoaster have many places to visit---why mar the spectacular scenery for another two-bit amusement ride.

How depressing.:Cry:

 

[Slidergirl]

A rollercoaster at Snowbird? Really? Next, a ferris wheel? Or Pirates of the Caribbean? I guess God's natural beauty is not enough anymore----people expect amusement.

https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13952239

So sad and maybe that's why Americans are becoming obese--instead of hiking and exploring (for free) folks want to pay big bucks for a thrill ride.

Why even come to the mountains? Folks wanting a rollercoaster have many places to visit---why mar the spectacular scenery for another two-bit amusement ride.

How depressing.:Cry:

OK. I object to that characterization. Park City Mt. Resort has it's coaster and 4 slides and a zip rider. It's not Disneyland nor even a low-level amusement park. People come up to do the rides, but they also take the chairlift to take in the scenery, go hiking on top, do some mt. biking. It gets people up from the dregs of the Salt Lake Valley in the summer time. They spend money in Park City, helping our summer economy. The money earned in the summer helps with the winter projects at the resort. The summer operation helps keep some of the seasonal workers employed until winter shows up.
Now, Park City is an appropriate place for this stuff. Snowbird - maybe not. It's a totally different environment. LLC is already heavily restricted on what can and cannot happen there. I believe it should stay that way. BUT, don't characterize the desire of some to put in a coaster is a step towards the Disneyland-ization of LLC. Places are trying to do whatever they can to make money. If they can't make money, you'll have no ski area in the winter, or at least an aging infrastructure.

 

[Jilly]

2 resorts in the Laurentains have these. Tremblants is a cart that follow a track on the lower mountain. Saveurs is an elevated rail type.

And yes, its gets people there and they spend money. Tremblant has golf, hiking, water sports too. Saveur has a water park as do many of the Ontario ski hills. You can't operate just a ski hill anyone. You need a summer activity to bring in the money. Most Ontario hills are going mountain biking or water park for summer.

I don't think a mountain coaster is going to detract or turn anywhere into Disneyland. These type of attractions are not eyesores to the landscape. They use the landscape, just like a zip line.

 

[altagirl]

I'm not opposed to putting in a mountain coaster... but that does seem like a bizarre place to put it. Why the heck does it need to cross the road or go on to Mt. Superior, which is not part of a lift served ski area at all? I know Snowbird owns land all over the place, but it makes more sense to me to put it on the mountain somewhere that's already developed with lifts and whatnot.

 

[RachelV]

Yeah, I go both ways on this. Putting this thing up the side of Mt. Superior and across the canyon road really does seem like a terrible idea. I mean, I wouldn't even want a lift there:

I understand wanting more income over the summer months, but really, with Snowbird operating into May and even June/July sometimes, it really doesn't seem like it's as necessary as in other places. The ski areas near my parents in central CT operate from about mid-December to mid-March -- now THEY need a lot of summer activities to stay viable. A place like Snowbird that's an international destination and has skiing-related income 6+ months a year... it just doesn't seem worth marring the canyon with this.

 

[altagirl]

Snowbird actually does have a lot of summer activities. The tram runs all summer, they have jazz festivals, oktoberfest, hiking, whatever you call that bouncy bungy trampoline thing... etc. They "sort of" have mountain biking, but mostly just horrid fire road "trails". And they do running races and mountain bike hill climb races (ack!). They stay relatively busy, I think.

And I'm pretty sure the reason they chose this location is that the mountain is just too steep to say, bring people up on the tram and build a coaster down from the top. Which is really the same reason the mountain isn't very good for mountain biking - too steep to build sustainable trails on most of it. That said - crossing the road and marring probably the most photographed landscape in the canyon is definitely a tough sell. Anyway, I would think there would have to be other possible routes on the developed side of the canyon - open another lift in summer and build something over there - like by that lower terrain park area or something.

 

[dloveski]

OK. Now, Park City is an appropriate place for this stuff. Snowbird - maybe not. It's a totally different environment. LLC is already heavily restricted on what can and cannot happen there. .

My point exactly.

 

[whitewater girl]

coasters give family's with stubborn non-hikers, etc., the ability to come out and all have something to do...

 

[alta_gal83]

Superior!?!?! REALLY?!??! One of the most beautiful, scenic places in LCC? Snowbird, I'm fine if you want to have a coaster, but please PLEASE keep it on the Snowbird side of the canyon and don't ruin Superior just because you can.

(shakes head)