Should ski resorts be run by suits ... or farmers?

A snowHead

Ski resort trading is in the news again, with reports from Australia that Perisher-Blue is up for sale. In Australian terms this is one of the larger destinations.

Ski resorts are increasingly managed by city people, bean-counters, experts in skier traffic, snow making, apartment block construction and apres-ski lifestyle. Some resorts are operated like theme parks, with almost every movement of the customer scrutinised and analysed.

Go back a few decades and these things were unheard of. Ski resorts were run by local farmers (the landowners, after all) who clubbed together to invest in a ski lift - or maybe even financed its construction single-handedly. They built hotels and learned how to run restaurants.

The 21st century is going to be one of huge concerns over the upwardly-mobile snowline, and the balance of things like snowmaking against water conservation. There is going to be huge pressure to further develop Alpine land - particularly high-altitude land - with powerful businesses seeking to undertake this exploitation.

In this context, should the future of skiing be entrusted to big business? Or should local people determine the (responsible) use of the mountains?

A snowHead

Locals every time, just look at the number of buisness owned concrete blocks erected all over the alps to see why, locals are more concerned about their local enviroment as well as they have to live there

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Locals know their local environment and its micro climate, unless the suits take on a range of local people this information will take them time to build up, it is unlikely that a local would want to construct any thing in a avalanche path but for a suit they would see it as cheap land with limited risk as long as the snow pack is monitored

You need to Login to know who's really who.

D G Orf, true, but Tignes is owned by the locals and most people (not me) regard it as an architectural abomination. It's high location suggests that it's probably not doing much for some fairly fragile flora and fauna, too. I think that the notion that 'local people' will look after the place any better than anyone else is wildly optimistic; they're as greedy as anybody else. It is up to 'the authorities' to curb the excesses of who ever owns it.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Tignes is a bit of an exception. Because the original village now lies at the bottom of the reservoir I imagine that the hydro-electric company or government had to compensate the original villagers with some land up at what is now Tignes. Maybe some of them just cashed in and shipped out.

So who owned the bulk of the land in Val Claret, Le Lac etc. when the resort was originally developed? Was it really locals? The answer to those questions may provide some clues as to why it became such an abomination. [I don't know the answer to the questions, BTW]

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

When I read bean counters-I think: Intrawest, Compagnie des Alpes, MGM Construction........... coming to homogenise a resort near you soon.

After all it is free

Locals also probably don't have that much cash to splash. Take Whistler this season, were it not for the very deep Intrawest pockets it would almost certainly have not been possible to keep it open for 2 months of bizarre weather in Jan/Feb/March, I for one was very glad it was owned/run-by Intrawest.
Why is it assumed that everything big businesses do is cynical? Why is it assumed that everything 'locals' do is not?

David Goldsmith, my understanding is that Tignes was developed by the local community with their compensation cash. I've no idea who owns it now, although I believe that at least some locals maintain an interest.

Whether or not Tignes is an exception, where has the idea that locals are better guardians of their turf than anyone else been borne out by experience? Somewhere, no doubt, but not widely. Farmers (corporate and private) in the UK (encouraged by various governments) have not been ideal custodians of their patches, for example. Wave a wad of cash at someone and their long term environmental and cultural considerations tend to evaporate.

There may well be good socioeconomic reasons for encouraging locals to own and run ski resorts, but they need watching like anyone else.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

stuarth, Because they are not there for your benefit, they have budgets to meet, beds to fill, backers to satisfy. Once ski resorts cease being a cash crop they will be gone, to the next "leisure opportunity" Call me a cynic if you like, thats ok by me wink

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snowbunny, I agree, and that surely applies whether a resort is run by locals or suits.

snow reports

I vote for the suits. Things seem to run better by big corporations that know what they're doing. Look at Whistler for example, a great ski resort where the service is second to none. Yes they are there to take your money, but let's not get all romantic about the poor local peasants who run ski resorts, they're in it for the money as much as anyone else.

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

rob@rar.org.uk, We can all help to support the small resorts by giving them our trade.

A snowHead

Japan is an interesting case study. I don't who put up most of the resorts during the feverish ski boom, but it has now collapsed.

My understanding is that some resorts are only continuing to run because the 'deconstruction' of the resorts and their lift systems is too expensive for owners to undertake. Apparently, under Japanese environmental laws, the landowner must restore the land at their own expense in these circumstances

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Back to Perisher, there are reports of considerable international interest as well.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Perish the thought

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I vote for neither. Skiers (and snowboarders) should own and operate ski resorts, at least the smaller ones.

The most fun places I've skied have usually been the smaller resorts or club run facilities which depend on enthusiasm rather than profit.

I appreciate however that this isn't a possible model for an interconnect which is why many of the large ski resorts tend to have all the character of an out of town Shopping Mall.

After all it is free

MGM are part of Pierre & Vacances, most certainly not a local company.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

rob@rar.org.uk, Yes - ski resorts are big business - millions of euros per week big.

However it does seem that the majority of corporations are run entirely by accountants, so the bottom line becomes the ONLY consideration. this seems to me to be unhelpful when running something as diverse as a ski resort, with so many safety issues to factor in etc. The majority of ski resorts in Europe are run by collections of individuals. The lift company may be a corporation, but the hotels, shops, chalets, bars etc. are mostly small or family businesses. Many of the rental apartments are privately owned and let out to pay for the owners' holidays.

richmond, It's their (the locals') land! Shock

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I don't see why the underlying assets of ski resorts shouldn't be traded like any other. If you insist that locals own them, you're actually denying them the freedom to sell their assets for the best price when it suits them. Of course the authorities need to operate fair and effective planning regimes, and guard against the establishment of effective monopolies or cartels.

snow reports

Some co-proprietaires of our (MGM) apartments have nicknamed the current boss of MGM (son of the original Maurice) "tant que Savoyard", one of his favourite phrases (when replying to any accusations that he rides roughshod over local interests...). Any development proposal, whether for apartments or (especially) lifts will pit local against local. One man's economic opportunity is the next man's unwelcome intrusion. Local politics is heated, very confrontational and often personal (not that I begin to understand what's going on, or what the origins of some of the long standing feuds and quarrels are). As others have suggested above, to think that "locals" are a homogeneous group with the same interests and values is a bit simplistic. In our neck of the hills the "maires" of the two main villages who supposedly work together to manage the resort are at daggers drawn and in general relations between the communes, just a few miles apart but in different valleys and different world, are absymal. It is this aspect of local politics that "suits", whether they are local suits like Giraud, or from further afield, are able to exploit with such apparent ease. The pattern of land-holding and access rights across pastures is so complex, and French law such, that if "locals" were of one mind, outsiders would not stand a chance of muscling in.

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

I heard a rumour that the Solaise bumps in VdI had been removed. The reason quoted, being that access to return to the resort had to be made "easier" on skis to attract more people. If it is true I'll bet the suits organised that one, the locals would not even notice them, much less perceive any potential problem.

A snowHead

ise, maybe, but I suspect that the object of all of them is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I don't notice the Swiss or the French, or anyone else for that matter, giving much of a toss about anything except the contents of their wallets.

A snowHead

richmond, you may not have noticed but it's true nonetheless.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

richmond, a key reason why the French economy is suffering today is that it relied extensively on the Franco-German motor and higher productivity (still per hour worked 5% higher than in the US) to power its costly social model. But 'new France' politicians claim a new engine is needed, not just a change of oil. The problem the Sarkozy-style politicians face is convincing the French themselves, who generally speaking, from peasant farmer to a significant proportion of employers, still support the status quo. We've had a right of centre president and government for years now, so why haven't their economic policies brought about improved growth? It is almost entirely down to hours worked, and the refusal of the French to compromise on the issues of leisure time and public services. Over 23 years to 2003, the average hours worked in the US leapt by an incredible 39%. In the UK, by 8%. In France? They fell by 6%. You can imagine the corresponding effect on GDP/growth. (Source: OECD Camdessus "Le sursaut: Vers une nouvelle croissance pour la France").

All I'm getting at here with respect to the issue of $$$$$$$, is that the French have a very different notion of what the work ethic should represent. Whether or not they will continue to be able to fund those principles is another matter. The Anglo Saxon idea, particularly across the Pond, of having a few days' holiday a year, being first in and last to leave the office, barely having the time to swallow a Big Mac whole during the lunch break, most French believe to be a sign of the world going mad.

Still, the cracks are showing. A price is paid in job creation - the French turn their noses up at the low wage "McJobs" scenario, but French employers take on proportionately less people in businesses of comparable size to the other side of the Channel, leading to high unemployment. Ethnic minorities are restless, unintegrated. The state spends 10% more of GDP than the UK, and is piling up debts for future generations.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

PG, that's a very scary picture Sad

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

davidof, the productivity situation was like that before the introduction of the 35 hours working week, and has worsened somewhat since in certain sectors. I've worked in both the hotel and transport sectors, and my experience is that the rules and regs are pretty firmly enforced there - and they get a minimum five weeks holiday a year too.

6pm? You slacker, you.... wink

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

I'm not particularly suspicious of those figures. I'm often surprised at US companies taking on large numbers of staff at the drop of a hat - and wonder how they can induct so many, so quickly - answer: it doesn't always work smoothly! That behaviour depresses measures of productivity, but I think better that than large numbers of unemployed because comparable employers in Europe are more averse to the (somewhat greater) risks of hiring.

Chaps, where is the evidence that 'locally owned' resorts offer as better deal to the environment than non-locally owned ones? Tignes, exception or not, seems to me to be a prime example of the former and is universally reviled (harshly in my view) for its aesthetics and it must be an environmental disaster area, if only by virtue of its position.

I accept PG's point that the French economic model is different from others, and that their work ethic is different from others' (good for them), but I don't accept that this means that they can be relied upon to look after the environment, if it costs them. This is the country which recognises only concrete as a suitable building material, after all. Apart from that, france is not the only country developing ski resorts.

The idea of local people owning and running a ski resort or any rural enterprise and carefully balancing their short term self interest against the environment and so on is very attractive, but it won't wash. External controls are needed to control development. It's not fair or realistic to ask turkeys to vote for Christmas.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

Should ski resorts be run by suits ... or farmers?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste