Great Lakes Cities

[Crawford]

Skiing in the East — compared to the West, but there are two good reasons to ski East:

1. Access. There's no decent skiing out West that's near any major airport. It's expensive, time-consuming and a schlep to go to "real" skiing like Alta or Jackson Hole.

2. Most "ski weekends" aren't really about skiing. Go to Killington on a typical weekend and most people are trying to get laid. Weekdays are more family time. Whether or not Mt. Snow has equivalent skiing as Whistler is as relevant as whether or not Long Island beaches are equivalent to the Seychelles (which is to say, almost completely irrelevant). It's more for networking, partying, family time, etc.

Anecdotal, but last "ski weekend" around half the people in our group never put on skis or snowboards.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Also you can get 1,000' vert in the Great Lakes, it's called Mt Bohemia and is easily as technical as any terrain all but the best skiers would hit out West.

It's 900 ft.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

SO MUCH to correct...

Nope, Chicago's total rise is 100' over 234 Square Miles and the highest points are literally slight rises along a terminal moraine at the very outskirts of city limits. Buffalo is 125' over 54 Square Miles, almost 1/5th of the area. Chicago is probably the flattest city on Earth not on a coastal plain.

What if I have a city of 234 sq miles that sees an elevation change of 0' over that entire expanse... except at one point there is a one square foot mesa that rises to a prominence of 150'. Is that city flatter or hillier than Chicago?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

What's pretentious about wanting more than 1,000 feet of vertical?

Skiing in the East is bad, but not that bad. Whiteface has 3,500 vertical, and Killington is over 3,000 vertical. There are some long trails in both resorts.

Pretty much all the major Northeastern resorts have over 2,000 vertical. Okemo, Stowe, Stratton, Sugarbush, are all over 2,000. Not great skiing but not terrible.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's no decent skiing out West that's near any major airport.

There's multiple ski resorts within 2 hours of Vancouver, Sacramento, and Denver airports. Park City is 45 min from SLC.

[Centropolis]

since this is become the show your own citys crappy ski slope thread. hidden valley in st. louis county..the only thing good about it, is that it's in st. louis county in the western suburbs and I can get to it in a half hour. the bad thing is that it —, and it's hardly ever cold enough for good snow or often any snow...

https://img1.onthesnow.com

it's usually like this, like skiing on a spilled slushy in the sunshine...

upload.wikimedia.org

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by homebucket

There's multiple ski resorts within 2 hours of Vancouver, Sacramento, and Denver airports. Park City is 45 min from SLC.

How is a 2 hour drive "close"? Whistler is 2 hours from Vancouver, along a twisty, dangerous road. I don't see how it's convenient to take a flight that's as expensive and long as traveling to Europe, then schlep two hours up a mountain road, with all that gear, as opposed to just driving from my house to a local resort.

If you're a — skier, then, yeah, it's worth it. You would go to the Himalayas backcountry if required. To the average weekend skier/snowboarder, it's a huge commitment, IMO.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's no decent skiing out West that's near any major airport.

Uhhhhh what?

Originally Posted by homebucket

There's multiple ski resorts within 2 hours of Vancouver, Sacramento, and Denver airports. Park City is 45 min from SLC.

Reno International Airport is about 30 miles away from Lake Tahoe.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

since this is become the show your own citys crappy ski slope thread. hidden valley in st. louis county..the only thing good about it, is that it's in st. louis county in the western suburbs and I can get to it in a half hour. the bad thing is that it —, and it's hardly ever cold enough for good snow or often any snow...

Yeah, but do you have garbage ski hills? Metro Detroit has four ski "resorts", which is great (maybe unprecedented for a North American metro), but all four are artificial garbage hills.

That said, it's nice that millions of people are within a few minutes of cheap skiing.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How is a 2 hour drive "close"? Whistler is 2 hours from Vancouver, along a twisty, dangerous road. I don't see how it's convenient to take a flight that's as expensive and long as traveling to Europe, then schlep two hours up a mountain road, with all that gear, as opposed to just driving from my house to a local resort.

If you're a — skier, then, yeah, it's worth it. You would go to the Himalayas backcountry if required. To the average weekend skier/snowboarder, it's a huge commitment, IMO.

How close is the closest 2000'+ vertical ski resort to JFK?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Skiing in the East — compared to the West, but there are two good reasons to ski East:

1. Access. There's no decent skiing out West that's near any major airport. It's expensive, time-consuming and a schlep to go to "real" skiing like Alta or Jackson Hole.

2. Most "ski weekends" aren't really about skiing. Go to Killington on a typical weekend and most people are trying to get laid. Weekdays are more family time. Whether or not Mt. Snow has equivalent skiing as Whistler is as relevant as whether or not Long Island beaches are equivalent to the Seychelles (which is to say, almost completely irrelevant). It's more for networking, partying, family time, etc.

Anecdotal, but last "ski weekend" around half the people in our group never put on skis or snowboards.

You don't think people aren't doing that out west?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, but do you have garbage ski hills? Metro Detroit has four ski "resorts", which is great (maybe unprecedented for a North American metro), but all four are artificial garbage hills.

That said, it's nice that millions of people are within a few minutes of cheap skiing.

nope, our trash strewn giant landfill hills are reserved for the drive through east st. louis as a wonderful introduction to st. louis coming from the east. i'll bet that the snow is way better on those garbage hills near detroit, though.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by homebucket

How close is the closest 2000'+ vertical ski resort to JFK?

From JFK, it would be around 2.5 hours to the nearest decent near-2,000 verticals (places in the Catskills, like Hunter Mountain).

But it's an odd question, because no one in the history of the planet has flown to JFK for a ski weekend. I'm not arguing it's easier to fly to the East Coast to ski, obviously. I'm saying it's much easier for Northeastern locals to go to local resorts.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

You don't think people aren't doing that out west?

Oh, definitely, but my point is that many folks at ski resorts have other priorities beyond skiing. The fact that Kilington is much crappier than Whistler isn't terribly important unless you're an avid skier.

I also assume that sort of activity is less common in the best ski resorts, because they're self-selecting. No reason to go to Alta if you aren't into the fact that that the powder is world-class.

[Acajack]

Here is the closest ski resort to the city in my area. It's about 10 minutes from my place. 15 minutes from Canada's federal Parliament Buildings in downtown Ottawa.



The lights of the night skiing runs 5-6-7 you can see from the upper floor bedrooms of my house.

There are two or three other ski centres that are all within about a half-hour or less from the urban core here.

Although they all have chalets, these aren't truly "resorts" though. Nobody sleeps there.

But sure, you can easily go skiing after work or dinner here and be home by 9 or 10.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, but do you have garbage ski hills? Metro Detroit has four ski "resorts", which is great (maybe unprecedented for a North American metro), but all four are artificial garbage hills.

That said, it's nice that millions of people are within a few minutes of cheap skiing.

I learned to ski on those landfill hills. It wasn't until I was in college that I realized Mt. Brighton isn't a natural hill...

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

2. Most "ski weekends" aren't really about skiing. Go to Killington on a typical weekend and most people are trying to get laid. Weekdays are more family time. Whether or not Mt. Snow has equivalent skiing as Whistler is as relevant as whether or not Long Island beaches are equivalent to the Seychelles (which is to say, almost completely irrelevant). It's more for networking, partying, family time, etc.

How is this relevant? When are people not trying to get laid/network? What does this have to do with skiing opportunities?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How is a 2 hour drive "close"? Whistler is 2 hours from Vancouver, along a twisty, dangerous road. I don't see how it's convenient to take a flight that's as expensive and long as traveling to Europe, then schlep two hours up a mountain road, with all that gear, as opposed to just driving from my house to a local resort.

If you're a — skier, then, yeah, it's worth it. You would go to the Himalayas backcountry if required. To the average weekend skier/snowboarder, it's a huge commitment, IMO.

Vancouver has ski resorts 15 to 20 miles outside of downtown.

There is Cypress Mountain that is only 17 miles away. 53 runs over 2000 ft vertical drop. 420" of annual snowfall.

[MolsonExport]

Vancouver has three ski mountains looming right above the skyline: Grouse, Mt. Seymour, and Cypress Bowl. The views are beyond spectacular. The skiing is not on par with Whistler, but they offer decent pitches, moguls, and vertical. You can take public transit to any of these hills...I used to take the seabus across Vancouver harbour, then one bus connection and I was able to get from downtown to the top of Grouse in less than 45 minutes--by TRANSIT-- if I made my connections.

https://www.google.ca/search?client=fire...:lrf:!2m1!1e2!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:1

Vancouver is hands down, the most blessed major city on the continent when it comes to skiing. Whistler is 2 hours away (less if the road is clear, and since the Olympics, it is far less twisty and dangerous compared to the way it was when I lived in Vancouver in the 90s). Also nearby is Mount Baker (Wash state), which gets more snow than anyplace on earth, reputedly. Manning Park is about 90 minutes east. Drive a bit further, and you have the resorts of the Okanagan.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, but do you have garbage ski hills? Metro Detroit has four ski "resorts", which is great (maybe unprecedented for a North American metro), but all four are artificial garbage hills.

That said, it's nice that millions of people are within a few minutes of cheap skiing.

I know we've gone wildly off course, here...while I'm not sure about the three others, I know that Mt. Brighton is made of construction debris/left-over from the constructions of I-96 and US 23. So, I guess you could technically call it a "garbage hill" but I'd probably just call it man-made. I've also heard that Mt. Holly is of a similar background created from debris from some kind of mine (gravel?), but I can't find any confirmation of that. I know nothing about Alpine Valley or Pine Knob. Suffice it to say, they are all artificial.