Resort Market not holding
Bridger Bowl Ski Area Developers Withdraw Resort Plans
By Lucia Stewart, 4-03-08
 |
|
 | |
|
The application for a large-scale base area development at Bridger Bowl Ski Area, outside of Bozeman, Montana has been withdrawn.
After hundreds of public comments in April and May of 2007, the Bridger Canyon Partners asked the Gallatin County Planning Department to table their Planned Unit Development in order to continue discussion and come to an agreement with the Bridger Canyon Property Owners’ Association (BCPOA).
The Bridger Canyon Neighborhood Zoning, established in the 1970’s by the BCPOA, shaped strict rules and regulations about development in this pristine canyon, particularly when it came to the proposed 452 overnight units, 75 recreational home lots, a commercial village, a recreational lodge and employee housing.
The Bridger Canyon Partners decided the timeline, including reasonable agreement with the BCPOA, water rights and permitting, coupled with housing downturn, makes the project unfeasible at this time and withdrew their application on March 26th.
There are plans for development at the base area, but on a much smaller scale at a later, undetermined date.
[End of article]I don't know what the heck is going on at Bridger lately (and I must admit I have let what seemed like years of great management inline with community needs make me lackadaisical), but I beginning to be more and more concerned with Bridger Bowl.
I am sure Bridger Bowl has an official mission statement formed in the positive, but if they to have a statement formed in the negative it should be this: "Bridger Bowl is NOT a ski resort." Bridger Bowl is local, community, ski hill serving the local area; it is not some destination resort.
I have heard second-hand that there are some at Bridger Bowl who have been using the refrain "we must grow to compete." If that is true I want them to know I consider that refrain as flawed as the " growth is good" mantra that has driven land use in all the West.
I sat on the sidelines as Bridger Bowl expanded its southern and northern boundaries even though I knew it would mean the loss of one of my favorite backcountry ski experiences on Slushman's because I trusted Bridger Bowl to keep the essential character of Bridger the same while providing great skiing to the community. While I don't yet regret my decision not to oppose the Bridger Bowl expansion, I have grown increasingly concerned about the other "improvements" I've heard floated for Bridger Bowl. The thought of a destination resort and more infrastructure at the base of Bridger Bowl and in the canyon makes me want to vomit. IF this is the vision some have for my local community ski hill, I vow to fight them all the way.
I live in the East and visited Bridger Bowl for the first time in the winter this year. Bridger is a natural environment with a ski area. It certainly has the physical beauty, snow and location to become a ski area/resort/destination. If and when it does, it will no longer be a natural environment with a ski area.
Tough choice.
Irreversible also.
Smart move, given the current economic conditions. I'd rather not be reading about Bridger's financial troubles in a few years. Don't want them to join Tamarack, Promontory, Yellowstone Club, and probably some more coming soon.
And from an environmental/community standpoint, Rob is absolutely right. When I want extravagance, I go to Big Sky. When I want some no-nonsense powder and down-to-earth people, I go to Bridger. Let's keep the community ski areas.
Bridger Bowl has been "improving" the ski area since 1995. The first major change started with the the building of the quad out of the base area and the shortening of the Bridger and Alpine lifts. I can remember all the public comments I took about it that year as I was building the lifts for CTEC, Garaventa. Most were very concerned that "their" mountain was changing and for the worse. Well I think most generally except that this actually improved the skier traffic flow on the mountain, but it took time to sink in. Then I watched the tearing down of the Deer Park Chalet (the old A frame) to make way for the new and improved lodge worthy of any snooty resort (ex. Aspen, Vail, Sun Valley, Jackson, Yellowstone Club and so on). Then, a bunch more money was poured into a new base lodge. This has all helped attract more skier visits and increase the profits (for a not for profit ski area?) I don't even bother skiing Bridger anymore as the skier experience is ruined for me. The powder is fully tracked out by 11am on a good day and cars are parked way out onto Bridger Canyon road. I've heard that the ski area actually has now turned skiers away due to too many people on the hill. So after all this money has been spent on ski lodges, little has been spent on updating antiquated (almost dangerous) ski lifts so that Muffy can have her latte. Great way to spend the extra "profits". Now Muffy wants her own slopeside ski chalet so she can drink her latte in privacy so she doesn't have to mingle with the local ski bum riff-raff. A great improvement to the previous ski area. If you look at past Bridger Bowl board members and look at those who own land nearby, one might notice members who might personally profit when the ski area expands right to their doorsteps or in this case, vacant land.
This is just one more thing that saddens me about the demise of the Bozeman area. When is enough...just enough?
Do we really need anymore damn ski slopes and lodges in this country? Enjoy the forest for what it is, not what it can be made into.
Comment By Angie, 4-09-08The expansion plan tabled!? Maybe there is a god.
Comment By Tom Fiddaman, 4-12-08The Bridger Canyon Property Owners' Association fought hard to reshape this development into something consistent with our zoning, with a reasonable scale that serves something like the current ski community and preserves natural assets. Hopefully the withdrawal provides an opportunity for something better.
It's important to remember that Bridger Bowl is not the developer here (though they do have a small number of development rights of their own). One of the fundamental problems with the original proposal was that it was not well integrated with the ski area, and thus had the potential to worsen traffic, parking, and other problems, rather than contributing to their solution.
You can read about our efforts at
http://bcpoa.net/base.html
Tell us what you think at
http://groups.google.com/group/bridger-canyon-forum