Jump to content


Northstar-at-tahoe


  • You cannot reply to this topic
17 replies to this topic

#1 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 18 April 2004 - 06:00 PM

I think it is pretty much official: Northstar will suck within the next twenty years. The Village project is beginning to seem less and less of a problem compared to what East-West partners wants to do with the place, however. The development of Truckee will definitely have a negative impact on the place, but it will be somewhat buffered by the fact that it is a city and not a resort, though they do want to turn it into a resort town, it seems. What worries me most in Truckee is the development of Martis Valley. No longer will one be skiing looking down upon a pretty valley, but a series of townhomes and condos filling the meadows. Certainly, that will not necessarily kill whatever ski experience Northstar has to offer, but it will come close, with over 6,000 units filling the valley. Indeed, what will kill Northstar in my mind is the Highlands project: a series of 1,800 homes and a 255-room hotel built AT MID-MOUNTAIN, inbetween Pioneer and Lookout, where some of the current cross-country trails are. All of these will have ski-in ski-out access. East-West wants to turn this mountain into another Beaver Creek, not realizing that it has neither the vertical, nor the acreage, nor the topography to sustain the resort they want to create. Any other opinions?

General Overview

This post has been edited by CAski: 18 April 2004 - 06:01 PM

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

#2 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 18 April 2004 - 09:33 PM

Yikes. Too bad becasue Truckee is a really nice town and they are really going to ruin it. Does northstar have plans to expand the skiable area? It can barley handle the crowds now, so i doubt thousands of homes are going to help it out. Another problem with northstar is that it recieves less snow then nearby squaw and alpine, and the main problem is that the terrain just really isnt all that fun. Someone is going to make a lot of money though.
Zack

#3 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 19 April 2004 - 04:40 PM

That someone is East-west. And Booth Creek gets a little money for doing nothing, as part of the deal. They are going to expand the terrain, but it just isn't going to have enough to handle what they want to put in. Remember, East-West wants another Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek this ain't.
"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

#4 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 19 April 2004 - 08:31 PM

Scary to think about. Hopefully Truckee can keep some of its charm.
Zack

#5 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 19 April 2004 - 08:56 PM

Don't count on it. Bringing 50,000 people to a region doesn't leave it the same. (So maybe it isn't that high, but it is certainly in the tens of thousands).

Our hope seems to lie in Sierra Watch and the State Attorney General.

This post has been edited by CAski: 19 April 2004 - 08:57 PM

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

#6 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 19 April 2004 - 10:11 PM

Well there will still be the town of Tahoe City left. It will probably end up something like a bigger more developed mammoth lakes. The weekend population there is about 35,000 and during mid-week it is around 6,000.
Zack

#7 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 21 April 2004 - 12:16 PM

That's going to be one crowded mountain if they don't do something about it before all of this
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet

#8 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 21 April 2004 - 08:00 PM

They can't do enough to save it. The layout just would not suffice no matter how you reorganize it, unless you added another base area over by lookout or even as far as inbetween Lookout and Backside (If it were even feasible to put a village there). However, then it would be a bit like Heavenly in terms of awkwardness (and even more over-developed! :shocked: ). Wait a second! That is pretty much what they want to do with the highlands: to put another "Base" by lookout. However, it is still to close to the original base to allow a sufficient spreading out of people across the mountain. Thus it will take forever for lines to die down toward the base (if they ever do). There are powder stashes even at Heavenly. When Northstar gets through with its plans, there will be none on Mt. Pluto.

This post has been edited by CAski: 21 April 2004 - 08:01 PM

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

#9 SkiBachelor

    Forum Administrator

  • Administrator II
  • 6,242 Posts:
  • Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 21 April 2004 - 08:16 PM

You guys really need to visit some of the ski resorts in Europe. When I was over there this past summer, I visited Zermatt and it really amazed me how crowded and big of a place it was, but it still had a lot of character to it. There is nothing wrong about having a big village, but here in America, resort villages are all hooked together and your forced to take the same path to and from the lifts where in Europe you can side shoot to the lifts skipping all the shops if you want to. But since this resort development is more focused on real-estate, I can see how it can really hurt it.
- Cameron

#10 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 21 April 2004 - 08:40 PM

In Europe, you are also talking about a 22,000 acre ski area compared to a 2,200 acre ski area in America.
"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

#11 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 23 April 2004 - 11:17 PM

Northstar's current lift system can barley handle midwinter weekend crowds today, so think of what this development will do. The trails are crowded with the express quads, so 6-packs will make trails even worse, and you can't forget about the cost. They get less snow then other tahoe resorts, and they dont really have very good terrain. Lookout is decent, i just wish it was a bit higher up, and the backside is fun, just not steep enough. As i have said before, they are digging themselves into a hole and there will be no way out.
Zack

#12 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 24 April 2004 - 10:18 AM

It will probably have some negative impact on the other resorts at Tahoe as well, not to mention the awful traffic.
"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

#13 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 24 April 2004 - 12:11 PM

Traffic down I-80 is already horrible on a saturday or sunday, so yes, this sure wont help that out. Interesting times we live in right now.
Zack

#14 SkiBachelor

    Forum Administrator

  • Administrator II
  • 6,242 Posts:
  • Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 24 April 2004 - 12:25 PM

It would be really cool if Tahoe had a ski train like the one in Colorado and Sunday River, but it would be pretty hard to connect all those resorts together and cost a lot of money these days.
- Cameron

#15 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 24 April 2004 - 12:29 PM

There used to be a train that ran from the valley and stopped by sugar bowl and ran through truckee, but that is long gone. I doubt a project like that could get approved also, but if they really go for the olympics in the near future, it is a possible solution.
Zack

#16 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 24 April 2004 - 12:55 PM

Yes, I have read that a train is one of the potential solutions to solving traffic problems in time for the Olympics. Also, Stateline has been considering a train as well. However, I doubt that this project would necessarily come to fruition (actually, I hope it doesn't come to fruition, as I do not want the Olympics at Tahoe). I have also read that there are definitely going to be improvements to the roads that should relieve some of the mess. Kings Beach is installing a series of roundabouts, Stateline is installing roundabouts and moving the 50 so that it goes around the casino cooridor entirely, and I have read (in passing, I don't know how likely it is to happen) that Tahoe City is also proposing a bypass. I know that the first two are definitely going to happen.
"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

#17 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:07 PM

Why is it you dont want the olympics in tahoe again?
Zack

#18 CAski

    Established User

  • Member
  • 363 Posts:

Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:20 PM

The crowds and attention that it will bring. More development, etc.
"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users