Forum
Porters Expansion
Originally posted by: southernthrash“We’ve blasted about 15,000 cubic metres of rock in both Sugar Bowl and Shadow Basin"
I'm sure you're all aware of what's been happening at Remarks over summer?
Ha ha. Classic. They've hired cassina as a ski area development consultant!
Despite some people around here asserting that DOC don't allow such shenanigans... Will be good for the stash, and for shadow basin.
I'm guessing this is the advantage of the "ski area" zoning at the qldc vs the high country rural zone the rest of NZ ski indusry has to contend with
No, it's not actually...
*edited 27 Mar 2011 14:03
Reading through the district plan, it seems that ski area sub-zone is not subject to the same earthworks restrictions as the rest of the rural zone.
v Significant Indigenous Vegetation
In the areas identified on the District Plan Maps as being of significant indigenous vegetation, and included in Appendix 5 (other than within Ski Area Sub-Zones):
(a) no earthworks shall:
(i) exceed 1000m³ (volume) and/or 50m² (area) in any one hectare in any continuous period of 5 years; or
(ii) be located on slopes with an angle of greater than 20º (measured as an average slope angle over any 100m length of the slope on which the earthworks are to be carried out).
(b) no clearance of indigenous vegetation shall exceed 100m² in area in any one hectare in any continuous period of 5 years.
(c) there shall be no exotic tree or shrub planting.
(d) no buildings shall be erected.
viii Earthworks
The following limitations apply to all earthworks except:
• within the Ski Area Sub-Zone (as defined in this Plan):
1. Earthworks
(a) Earthworks shall not exceed a maximum area of bare soil exposed of 2500m² per site, within any one consecutive 12 month period.
(b) Earthworks shall not exceed a maximum volume of moved earth greater than 1000m³ per site, within any one consecutive 12 month period.
(c) Where any earthworks are undertaken within 7m of a water body the total volume shall not exceed 20m³ (except for earthworks undertaken within a road designation for the purpose of establishing, upgrading and/or maintaining a State Highway network).
So.. it's all down to DOC?
Yes, in practice that's generally the case in most places where DOC land is concerned.
i.e. generally a regional/district council won't have many objections to these kinds of works if DOC are happy with it, the ski field sub zone is essentially a streamlining mechanism to delegate the resource management responsibility to DOC (who are the land manager anyway).
I see what you're saying, but outside the QLDC jurasdiction, where no ski area sub zone exists, then given similar council rules re earthworks to the rural zone as what QLDC have, it would not be as easy given that other conditions would need to be satisfied to come under the exception before being palmed off to DOC to manage like you say.
Originally posted by: southernthrashOriginally posted by: BradOriginally posted by: southernthrash
The main reason to close the ridge access though is to control the in bounds chutes (and occasionally for bombing above shadow basin) - cutting down access to the other lines is secondary. That's not the only way to get in there either... ha
Ok ST whats this other route up to terminator?
Alta Slabs ice lines then traverse around the ridge.
and you've personally used this route to ride terminator? I think its pretty far fetched.
Personally I think you should put your crack pipe away.
--------------------------------
Shit happens.
It's been done.
I wouldn't head up there if the avvy danger was that high...
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
I see what you're saying, but outside the QLDC jurasdiction, where no ski area sub zone exists, then given similar council rules re earthworks to the rural zone as what QLDC have, it would not be as easy given that other conditions would need to be satisfied to come under the exception before being palmed off to DOC to manage like you say.
The DOC concession process is completely separate from the RMA process. I know which one is more rigorous... the DOC concession process only applies where DOC land is being used, as ultimately DOC is the land owner/manager/administrator. They have a much greater interest in whether or not earth works are carried out than the council. District councils are generally pretty lax when it comes to earthwork consenting.
Originally posted by: southernthrashhe asked if it had been done by you ST, not anecdotal evidence
It's been done.
I wouldn't head up there if the avvy danger was that high...
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodgecant wait for the new,rockfree remarksOriginally posted by: southernthrash“We’ve blasted about 15,000 cubic metres of rock in both Sugar Bowl and Shadow Basin"
I'm sure you're all aware of what's been happening at Remarks over summer?
Ha ha. Classic. They've hired cassina as a ski area development consultant!
Originally posted by: Mr. SplodgeOriginally posted by: southernthrash“We’ve blasted about 15,000 cubic metres of rock in both Sugar Bowl and Shadow Basin"
I'm sure you're all aware of what's been happening at Remarks over summer?
Ha ha. Classic. They've hired cassina as a ski area development consultant!
That was the rumour I got in a private message on here some months back but
was reluctant to name the ski area without a press release. No doubt BP and co will want it put back as it will no longer be extreme enough for them!!
Good on them I say and I will definitly be going there to check out the new terrain that has been opened up.
Originally posted by: brighton_pumpsOriginally posted by: Mr. Splodgecant wait for the new,rockfree remarksOriginally posted by: southernthrash“We’ve blasted about 15,000 cubic metres of rock in both Sugar Bowl and Shadow Basin"
I'm sure you're all aware of what's been happening at Remarks over summer?
Ha ha. Classic. They've hired cassina as a ski area development consultant!
Just the reality of establishing a ski field in an area with a lot of moraine and rock fall deposits. A good move by them
Originally posted by: cassinayou must be so proud of yourself cassina. as an ontrail only skier how eaxactly did the rocks affect you? surely an expert like yourself could deftly weave between them? you havnt been telling fibs have you?Originally posted by: Mr. SplodgeOriginally posted by: southernthrash“We’ve blasted about 15,000 cubic metres of rock in both Sugar Bowl and Shadow Basin"
I'm sure you're all aware of what's been happening at Remarks over summer?
Ha ha. Classic. They've hired cassina as a ski area development consultant!
That was the rumour I got in a private message on here some months back but
was reluctant to name the ski area without a press release. No doubt BP and co will want it put back as it will no longer be extreme enough for them!!
Good on them I say and I will definitly be going there to check out the new terrain that has been opened up.
Originally posted by: southernthrashlet me guess you have already been up to check it out? i hope youyr not just speculating STOriginally posted by: brighton_pumpsOriginally posted by: Mr. Splodgecant wait for the new,rockfree remarksOriginally posted by: southernthrash“We’ve blasted about 15,000 cubic metres of rock in both Sugar Bowl and Shadow Basin"
I'm sure you're all aware of what's been happening at Remarks over summer?
Ha ha. Classic. They've hired cassina as a ski area development consultant!
Just the reality of establishing a ski field in an area with a lot of moraine and rock fall deposits. A good move by them
ahhhh, remarks is full of boulders and piles of rock debris (mostly moraine from when it was glaciated, and more recent rockfall deposits). This sort of terrain is average ski field wise, because it takes ages to fill in with snow so essentially lost. By bulldozing and blasting these areas they can create more trails and actually increase the skiable area. They've also done the earthworks and installed snowmaking for a direct run down waterfall face to the bottom of shadow basin chair. This will make shadow basin way better, especially early and late season.
Originally posted by: brighton_pumpsOriginally posted by: cassinayou must be so proud of yourself cassina. as an ontrail only skier how eaxactly did the rocks affect you? surely an expert like yourself could deftly weave between them? you havnt been telling fibs have you?Originally posted by: Mr. SplodgeOriginally posted by: southernthrash“We’ve blasted about 15,000 cubic metres of rock in both Sugar Bowl and Shadow Basin"
I'm sure you're all aware of what's been happening at Remarks over summer?
Ha ha. Classic. They've hired cassina as a ski area development consultant!
That was the rumour I got in a private message on here some months back but
was reluctant to name the ski area without a press release. No doubt BP and co will want it put back as it will no longer be extreme enough for them!!
Good on them I say and I will definitly be going there to check out the new terrain that has been opened up.
There is a difference between expert and extreme like you. I think the time has
come for you and your mates to owe me an apology for saying it was a dumb idea to open up new terrain by rock blasting eh!!
no cassina you are a whole new level. from what i read it hardly looks life changing, but yes im sure it will be like a brand new field
to be fair bp, opening up new terrain is exactly why they have done a lot of it...
opening up new learner and intermediate terrain? what areas are open to advanced intermediate and above? the new waterfall groomer and???
^waterfall groomer which makes shadow basin more viable early and late season. Apparently a lot of the blasting/clearing has gone on around serpentine/gallery (stash trails). Also work on trails in Shadow basin
From a far this looks like they have;
a) improved the alta chair offload to reduce congestion (a huge safety improvement cass?). New area / terrain????
b) added gradiant to a spot where learners (i.e. due to going to slow) get stuck and since (it seems) any new ski instruction refers to 'herring bone' as dodgy dish in the cafe.
c) they can now drag a groomer up and down to produce an 'expert' steep piste - I can imagine very fast trips to the bottom on a spring morning with no rocks in the way!
But ...could you not enter this Waterfall run previously?
Cass - you argued blasting to open terrain and improve safety. Does the above really read that this has occurred? seems more like increasing intermediate through put and a steep groomer (Would this be good for race training perhaps?)
Originally posted by: southernthrash
No, that just doesn't make sense in the given context.
Originally posted by: brighton_pumps
no cassina you are a whole new level. from what i read it hardly looks life changing, but yes im sure it will be like a brand new field
I think you are just jelous you were not as bright as me and nzski to think of the
idea yourself and I think I floated this idea on here over a year ago so who knows they may have got the idea from my posts.
Originally posted by: kcskier
From a far this looks like they have;
a) improved the alta chair offload to reduce congestion (a huge safety improvement cass?). New area / terrain????
b) added gradiant to a spot where learners (i.e. due to going to slow) get stuck and since (it seems) any new ski instruction refers to 'herring bone' as dodgy dish in the cafe.
c) they can now drag a groomer up and down to produce an 'expert' steep piste - I can imagine very fast trips to the bottom on a spring morning with no rocks in the way!
Cass - you argued blasting to open terrain and improve safety. Does the above really read that this has occurred? seems more like increasing intermediate through put and a steep groomer (Would this be good for race training perhaps?)
I dont know the technical descriptions of the runs that have been named so will have to judge for myself when the season opens. In case you were not aware The
Remarks are not a race training mountain so they wont be loosing any racing.
Coronet is used for race and race training. The market for the Remarks is mostly
beginner and intermediates so if they loose a few experts/extreme guys like BP
I dont think they would see it as a big loss. But lets wait untill they open for the
season before passing judgement.
Originally posted by: kcskier
From a far this looks like they have;
a) improved the alta chair offload to reduce congestion (a huge safety improvement cass?). New area / terrain????
b) added gradiant to a spot where learners (i.e. due to going to slow) get stuck and since (it seems) any new ski instruction refers to 'herring bone' as dodgy dish in the cafe.
c) they can now drag a groomer up and down to produce an 'expert' steep piste - I can imagine very fast trips to the bottom on a spring morning with no rocks in the way!
Cass - you argued blasting to open terrain and improve safety. Does the above really read that this has occurred? seems more like increasing intermediate through put and a steep groomer (Would this be good for race training perhaps?)
Waterfall was fickel previously, steep and exposed to the sun. Often not pleasantly rideable, which meant that after hitting the upper part of shadow basin the only way out was along a shi--y narrow, flat, congested cat track. Adding snowmaking and grooming to waterfall is definitely a good move. Have you been to remarks?
*edited 28 Mar 2011 10:55
Originally posted by: cassina
... over a year ago so who knows they may have got the idea from my posts.
Sooo.... from moving a fair chunk of dirt (it seems) can you explain how it has really;
a) improved safety
b) opened up access to terrain
Even if it is a brilliant idea and you did seed the changes.
ps - Back on topic, it seems like the huge investment in intangibles required to secure a ski area these days makes NZ an unfeasible location for any 'world class' development. Until NZ is able to undergo a significant cultural (in its broadest sense) change these sort of initiatives can not succeed in the nether-nether between the 3rd world "wild west rape, pillage and plunger" and the 1st world Utopian mind sets. There is only one real solution....
let the snow fall...
realize we are blessed with the levels of access we do have to our public land...
be thankful we have a choice in how we wish to access this public land...
respect how others rights in gaining and/or assisting access...
and enjoy.
..anyway, in other news, earthworks, rolling and rock blasting at ski fields to improve access to terrain and enhance the user experience is nothing new and the remarkables are far from pioneers in this regard.
Originally posted by: southernthrash
Adding snowmaking and grooming to waterfall is definitely a good move. Have you been to remarks?
Yep - many years ago & I wouldn't have been skiing the Waterfall but do still vividly remember my mate tramping in rentals over 50m of rocks on the ridge as we went to do the Alta chutes!
I do remember getting bored and the track out of Shadow Basin was very akin to the 'easy way down' track bypassing the Whaka waterfall.
ps - I could probably determine where I was on the field if you showed me a picture with a little bit of surrounds.
Like I said Waterfall looks like it would be a very steep groomer but could ice up very quickly in the afternoon or be cheese grater corduroy once the groomer had done its work @ 5am.
Cass - re: racing, I was meaning the waterfall being used for race training.
Originally posted by: kcskier
ps - Back on topic, it seems like the huge investment in intangibles required to secure a ski area these days makes NZ an unfeasible location for any 'world class' development. Until NZ is able to undergo a significant cultural (in its broadest sense) change these sort of initiatives can not succeed in the nether-nether between the 3rd world "wild west rape, pillage and plunger" and the 1st world Utopian mind sets. There is only one real solution....
let the snow fall...
realize we are blessed with the levels of access we do have to our public land...
be thankful we have a choice in how we wish to access this public land...
respect how others rights in gaining and/or assisting access...
and enjoy.
That's all well and good for those of us who live here and those of us who kave a keen interest in the outdoors, make the effort to get the skills to enjoy our public land safely and all that. But the reality is (as the latest stats from the QT ski fields so succinctly point out), most nz are skiers are in fact, not from nz. Further to that (and this is educated guesswork on my part rather than from the result of any research), most skiers have no interest in outdoor activities such as mountaineering, tramping etc.
So yeah, it's great that we can enjoy the outdoors with a level of freedom that's unheard of in other countries but that doesn't bring in the tourist dollars and keep our ski fields in buiness in the face of the systemic anti-development culture and anti-overseas investment culture that exists.
I guess I'm agreeing with you here. There does need to be a cultural change, but I don't think let the snow fall and be happy is the solution. I'm a big believer in the notion that unless you fight for what you believe in, you can never affect change. That is primarily why I support the porters development. I'm unlikely to ever benefit from it in any way but I do think the "dangerous precedent" the greenies warn us about, is the kind of precedent we need.
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
..anyway, in other news, earthworks, rolling and rock blasting at ski fields to improve access to terrain and enhance the user experience is nothing new and the remarkables are far from pioneers in this regard.
Its interesting how this has been done at Whaka & Turoa over the years. I am sure that someone can prove me wrong but I belive most 'teraforming' of Ruapehu has been minimal, on a as needed basis with the exception of the bottom learners area at Turoa (& maybe the Rock Garden). Everything else would have been buildings, roads / cat tracks & drag lines.
Now ST, if you want a place that needs smoothing out so its ridable early season Rua's your place.
BTW - Whaka/Turoa people, anyone wanting to see a sh1t load of blasting to open up more terrain?
I think you'd struggle there, what with the national park status. Didn't turoa have their own pet rock in the carpark they got in trouble for biffing off the side a while back?
*edited 28 Mar 2011 12:01
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
I guess I'm agreeing with you here. There does need to be a cultural change, but I don't think let the snow fall and be happy is the solution.
Yeah - I think we're on the same wave length Splodge.
I just think some take the existence of the commercial (and club) fields for granted and don't see how certain stances slowly erode the long term viability of, if we focus on this, skiing for the masses.
I think the biggest risk with the Porters development is that we will end up with a fine example of why such endeavors should not be allowed for the likes of Walter2011 to crow about.
I just see patterns in things like the comments on the plan change consultation, in combination with all the other external factors, that make me nervous that we may end up with an eye sore. Google "abandoned ski village" and see where most ski village / resort only developments end up.
The most recurring theme in their failure is a "build it and they will come" attitude.
Soooooo many issues for Porters to tackle beyond the greenies.
Originally posted by: kcskier
From a far this looks like they have;
a) improved the alta chair offload to reduce congestion (a huge safety improvement cass?). New area / terrain????
b) added gradiant to a spot where learners (i.e. due to going to slow) get stuck and since (it seems) any new ski instruction refers to 'herring bone' as dodgy dish in the cafe.
c) they can now drag a groomer up and down to produce an 'expert' steep piste - I can imagine very fast trips to the bottom on a spring morning with no rocks in the way!
Cass - you argued blasting to open terrain and improve safety. Does the above really read that this has occurred? seems more like increasing intermediate through put and a steep groomer (Would this be good for race training perhaps?)
in cass's twisted mind he has done the entire nz ski community a huge favor KC, dont burst his bubble
*edited 28 Mar 2011 13:04
heres hoping they build the lifts before the village
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
I think you'd struggle there, what with the national park status. Didn't turoa have their own pet rock in the carpark they got in trouble for biffing off the side a while back?
Of course you would!
But does anyone think either field would benefit hugely from some blasting?
Porters management - question;
Does investment in opening up Crystal stand up on its own right?
No?
Why?
Is there not enough punters?
Why?
Is there not enough accommodation within a bus ride distance?
Is there not already a self sustaining community near by?
Why does it seem like the whole thing is pinned on a real estate development??!
Why not build the village WHEN they do come to enjoy the 'world class' terrain and facilities.
I wonder where this would be right now if it they only aspect of the debate was around extending operations into Crystal Valley.
"Slow & steady wins the race"... hmmm.
It could be argued that "build it and they will come" will enevitably lead to failure but it's worked in the past (whistler bc for example). Porters have the advantage of being close to chch. Look at the success of Hutt - when hutt is packed on powder days and weekends the crowd is predominantly chch based. So what have Hutt done to attract the chch crowds that porters have not is the question that needs to be asked, given their similar travel times.
Well, Hutt invested in their 6 seater chair which certainly brought the numbers up (more to the point got rid of the t-bars). Along with that, the range of intermediate terrain is far greater than porters. Development in crystal valley will certainly address those issues and I could forsee that alone giving porters a huge boost with the local market.
So that just leaves the matter of the overseas and school holiday crowd. Given the choice of staying in Queenstown, Wanaka, Methven or Springfield it doesn't take much imagination to guess where your average booze fuelled auusie is going to want to go.
Having the acommodation on the mountain will be such a huge draw card for skiers who are used to skiing overseas, where you don't have to worry about driving.
more time on the slopes - tick
longer to sleep in hungover - tick
boozing during the day - tick
alpine "feel" in the village - tick
I do think that crystal valley alone would have been easier for them to attract crowds without such a huge investment and opposition but I also think the village will succeed.
If it does succeed, it will represent a paradigm shift in attitudes here. A lot of people make excuses for why we have gravel access roads and no hotel style on-mountain accommodation but I think the real reason for it is because there hasn't been much of an effort to change the status quo. Noone else is doing it so why spend the money right? Besides, you'd only be shot down by the greenies for killing a few beetles with your bulldozer.
Porters need to show us that it can be done, and it will be profitable and it won't destroy our clean-green image. Good on them
good post splodge
Didn't Hutt go through bankruptcy years ago? I definitely remember hearing of people who bought life passes that they couldn't use after the field was sold.
Turoa went through bankruptcy too.
Perhaps the most successful way is to let someone build all the infrastructure and then buy it cheap when it fails due to the huge cost of the initial build.
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
Having the acommodation on the mountain will be such a huge draw card for skiers who are used to skiing overseas, where you don't have to worry about driving.
more time on the slopes - tick
longer to sleep in hungover - tick
boozing during the day - tick
alpine "feel" in the village - tick
If it does succeed, it will represent a paradigm shift in attitudes here. A lot of people make excuses for why we have gravel access roads and no hotel style on-mountain accommodation but I think the real reason for it is because there hasn't been much of an effort to change the status quo. Noone else is doing it so why spend the money right? Besides, you'd only be shot down by the greenies for killing a few beetles with your bulldozer.
Porters need to show us that it can be done, and it will be profitable and it won't destroy our clean-green image. Good on them
I think the reason we don't have alpine style villages is that we can't ski to the valley floor... we don't have a huge amount of flat land above the snowline that is suitable for development. Cardrona have been trying to get the whole alpine village thing to work for years... now they are changing tack and focusing development at the base of the road (although it's been quiet on that front for a while). It was tried years ago at CP, and for a while there was a real community up there during the winter amongst the club lodges, but nowadays most people would rather stay in Queenstown than pay $20 a night to stay on the snow. The Lee's plan on trying it with Roaring Meg, but they need way, way, way more capital. They could make it work there, the question will be whether tourists want to stay in a small isolated commercial village rather than Queenstown or Wanaka.
There are actually some jolly good spots with high altitude valleys that hold snow throughout winter and are surrounded by epic terrain in the South Island, but they are bloody isolated - that is the major hurdle. Porters looks like it could pull this off, but what altitude is the base going to be at?
Worldwide, "green valley" skiing is not uncommon (actually quite common). Such resorts just don't tend to grow into mega-resorts.
Shame macs is gone, he'd enjoy this discussion...
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
Porters need to show us that it can be done, and it will be profitable and it won't destroy our clean-green image. Good on them
I agree that porters is a potential game changer, which is why it is being fought so vigorously on both sides, everyone sees it as a precedent.
If Porters can prove the concept works then I would guess that TC will be next with their Gondy, followed fairly promptly by Snow Park.
As for the gravel roads - way easier and cheaper to maintain a safe alpine road if its gravel rather than seal. Just look at the difference between CP and Remarks. Chains are needed for ice way more often on CP than on Remarks, and the summer maintenance on the CP road is huge, because the chains (especially on the buses) destroy the asphalt and bitumen. The CP road is maintained by QLDC, there is no way in hell that NZSki could afford to maintain it.
A sad reality is that, physiographically, Australia is better suited to this kind of development.
Talking of staying close to the snow it is strange how whakapapa village has not really grown over the years, it's 10 mins max from the lifts yet the are only a couple of places to stay there. Whakapapa is one of the few resorts in nz where a large amounts of people do stay on the snow. I guess being in a national park makes it very hard for any development to happen there.
A gondola from whakapapa village would be awesome and save that massive walk from day park 10 for those who get up late, but being nz I don't see it ever happening.
If gravel roads are better suited to snow and ice why is it ruapehu has sealed road when they get by far the most traffic?
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
..anyway, in other news, earthworks, rolling and rock blasting at ski fields to improve access to terrain and enhance the user experience is nothing new and the remarkables are far from pioneers in this regard.
But going back a year ago some on here were saying that DOC would never allow
it as it would be envionmentally "destructive". One thing that was found out with the mining debate was that DOC puts different classifications on their land and perhaps
the Remarks does not have a high enough catagoury classification to warrant any
objection or resource consent requirement.
All year round use I suppose.
Talk to the engineers that manage, and the contractors that maintain the roads.
Originally posted by: kcskier
*edited 28 Mar 2011 12:01Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
I guess I'm agreeing with you here. There does need to be a cultural change, but I don't think let the snow fall and be happy is the solution.
Yeah - I think we're on the same wave length Splodge.
I just think some take the existence of the commercial (and club) fields for granted and don't see how certain stances slowly erode the long term viability of, if we focus on this, skiing for the masses.
I think the biggest risk with the Porters development is that we will end up with a fine example of why such endeavors should not be allowed for the likes of Walter2011 to crow about.
I just see patterns in things like the comments on the plan change consultation, in combination with all the other external factors, that make me nervous that we may end up with an eye sore. Google "abandoned ski village" and see where most ski village / resort only developments end up.
The most recurring theme in their failure is a "build it and they will come" attitude.
Soooooo many issues for Porters to tackle beyond the greenies.
Way back in the 70s before DOC and resource consents a skifield was established
by people who were told it could not be done. If they were to attempt that today
they would be locked up perhaps. The authorities are not allowing anything pioneering to be done today. BTW That skifield is one of the biggest in NZ today
with a high speed lift. The Porters development should be given the same chance.
Originally posted by: southernthrash
I think the reason we don't have alpine style villages is that we can't ski to the valley floor... we don't have a huge amount of flat land above the snowline that is suitable for development. Cardrona have been trying to get the whole alpine village thing to work for years... now they are changing tack and focusing development at the base of the road (although it's been quiet on that front for a while). It was tried years ago at CP, and for a while there was a real community up there during the winter amongst the club lodges, but nowadays most people would rather stay in Queenstown than pay $20 a night to stay on the snow. The Lee's plan on trying it with Roaring Meg, but they need way, way, way more capital. They could make it work there, the question will be whether tourists want to stay in a small isolated commercial village rather than Queenstown or Wanaka.
There are actually some jolly good spots with high altitude valleys that hold snow throughout winter and are surrounded by epic terrain in the South Island, but they are bloody isolated - that is the major hurdle. Porters looks like it could pull this off, but what altitude is the base going to be at?
Worldwide, "green valley" skiing is not uncommon (actually quite common). Such resorts just don't tend to grow into mega-resorts.
Shame macs is gone, he'd enjoy this discussion...
I think the base of porters is going to be around the 1000m mark. Same as Chamonix. They won't have snow on the ground all season but with snowmaking and careful management it should be skiable down to the village all season.
I think you've hit the nail on head about Cardrona's attemped alpine village (and coronet in the past). Why would you stay in an isolated lodge when you've got QT just down the road? What goes on up at Cardies of an evening anyway? Bars, restaurants etc or do you just stay in your apartment? Same goes for the Lyford log cabin village. Anything going on there at night?
You need a critical mass to make it work, which I guess is why they're shooting for 3500 beds with all the amenities from the get-go, rather than building a dozen apartments like Cardrona. You need the night life and a choice of places to eat and drink or it just won't appeal to the masses.
yea, 1000 m is still on the low side - especially given the aspect/exposure and what is likely to happen in the future. But yea they seem to be able to make Thredbo work for most of the Australian season, so here's hoping it can be done. Chamonix has a completely different climate, and again a different culture.
Not much goes on up at cardies. There's the occasional party at snowpark... Nightskiing at Coronet certainly adds a lot, that would be something that could work at Porters.
Lyford was something that could have flown with enough money behind it I always felt.
But yea, you are bang on about the critical mass, and I guess my point would be that finding a practical, accessible site where everything can come together is not trivial in NZ. Let's hope porters can do it eh?
it would certainly help them if people wernt so damn negative about the whole thing
*edited 28 Mar 2011 22:03
that's the long and short of it. developers say yes, greenies say no and bueaurocrats have saying neither yes or no down to a fine art!
Originally posted by: Mr. Splodge
*edited 28 Mar 2011 22:03
that's the long and short of it. developers say yes, greenies say no and bueaurocrats have saying neither yes or no down to a fine art!
And Lawyers make money win or loose.
Originally posted by: brighton_pumps
it would certainly help them if people weren't so damn negative about the whole thing
Its the lack of objective criticism that is the dangerous factor.
Splodge stated the most important aspect re: critical mass.
Remember - the bigger they are the harder they fall. And these a pretty big plans.
The consultation comments from the professional bureaucrats basically said that the proposal did not answer enough (or raised to many!) questions. Well, make sure that all of the boxes are ticked, then double check & triple check against those who know how to wear the 'black hat'. I am sure that there are more that a few ex-policy & planning professionals floating around Auckland these days.
This could (and I am sure it will) work but it may just have to be done a little differently.
Bens observation about Whaka Village is on the money... but ironically the one place where it can NEVER happen could be one of the most prime areas for this type of 'resort'.
"Top-o-the-Bruce" New Zealands own "High Camp"??
I wasnt referring to splodge KC, i agree with alot of what he says. its all the people saying it wont work, they'l go bankrupt etc.
Originally posted by: kcskier
Well, make sure that all of the boxes are ticked, then double check & triple check against those who know how to wear the 'black hat'. I am sure that there are more that a few ex-policy & planning professionals floating around Auckland these days.
This could (and I am sure it will) work but it may just have to be done a little differently.
Sounds like you know a bit about how these bureauocrats operate.
It seems to me like no bureaucrat can ever just say 'looks good, go for it'. They have to change something, probabaly to justify their existence. So a skillfull developer will put in plans that go over and above what they want to to, or different in some way, so when the council planners or whoever it might be come along and start throwing their weight around and making changes, the developer ends up getting more or less what he wanted in the first place. And of course the boxes need to be ticked and all thr right language used in the documents or the bureaucrats will throw it out.
^^ I think avoiding decisions is a well used method of career advancement in some organizations that aren't driven by a culture of profit or saving money.
Its almost like having to bow down and give reverence to the frameworks they put in place - i.e.
Org A says "Waterway B has a very rare spotty bug that shows signs of mutation if exposed to radiation".
Submitter who will undertake activity in said waterways catchment needs to say "In consideration of Waterway B Management Plan 2005 produced by Org A we recognize the unique environment of the spotty bug and the detrimental effects of radiation on its well being. We will implement radiation management plans in accordance with Standard BS#1 to ensure that there is no detrimental effect on the spotty bug from our operations".
Ah ha... tick for Org A. No reason to object.
Of course Standard BS#1 says "As Ski fields don't produce or use radioactive materials they don't need to comply with this standard".
Ah ha... tick for us. No need to give a sh1t about the spotty bug.
Everyone's a winner!!
Bit like court cases concerned solely with arguing a point of law so that it can then be applied to something real.
Originally posted by: brighton_pumps
I wasnt referring to splodge KC, i agree with alot of what he says. its all the people saying it wont work, they'l go bankrupt etc.
Yeah I know you weren't referring to Splodge. A balanced discussion has two sides to consider though doesn't it.
Its just the nutters like Walter2011 that I find amusing
Originally posted by: Mr. SplodgeOriginally posted by: kcskier
Well, make sure that all of the boxes are ticked, then double check & triple check against those who know how to wear the 'black hat'. I am sure that there are more that a few ex-policy & planning professionals floating around Auckland these days.
This could (and I am sure it will) work but it may just have to be done a little differently.
Sounds like you know a bit about how these bureauocrats operate.
It seems to me like no bureaucrat can ever just say 'looks good, go for it'. They have to change something, probabaly to justify their existence. So a skillfull developer will put in plans that go over and above what they want to to, or different in some way, so when the council planners or whoever it might be come along and start throwing their weight around and making changes, the developer ends up getting more or less what he wanted in the first place. And of course the boxes need to be ticked and all thr right language used in the documents or the bureaucrats will throw it out.
Having worked in the realm of "bureaucracy", I can tell you now that the vast majority of applicants submit documentation that is "slightly lacking" at best. You'd be amazed at the money they pay consultants to write appalling reports. There are very good reasons why we can't just say "looks good - go for it!"
One of the big issues from my pov (especially with things like skifield development) is an over abundance of "planners" and lack of scientists in the nz resource management sector.
But yea, if you pay attention with this stuff, regional and district plans, and conservation management strategies are basically written largely as a checklist against which you should assess any proposed development.