Great Lakes Cities

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

That's why I'll never trust an Erieite... bandwagoneers and fraudulent Western Pennsylvanians. Usually, it's a case of cherry-picking whichever regional pro teams are doing the best at the time.

I doubt there's a Browns fan under the age of 45 left in Erie these days.

Erie's definitely more western NY than western PA... except without the western NY nasally accent and without the Pittsburghese yinzer accent... again, the oddball... it's not called Eerie for nothing.

i wouldn't say bandwagoneers by a long shot though... the sports loyalties are lifelong commitments there, often depressingly so, i.e., Cleveland Browns. I've never heard of someone who's a hardcore fan from there changing allegiances.

Though I have to admit, I'll pretty much cheer for all of the regional teams. I do take on a pan-rustbelt mindset when it comes to sports.

[Centropolis]

in any case, it’s strange to think of pennsylvania as a Great Lakes State.

[10023]

Originally Posted by The North One

Boyne Mountain has some decent skiing/snowboarding


http://www.lakeshoremag.com/wp-conte...n-1024x683.jpg

This is a hill.

Also, I am going to Austria in the morning.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Guys this thread is supposed to be about ski hills near Milwaukee. Here's my homecourt:

Sunburst Ski Area:


skiwisconsin.com

Little Switzerland


snocountry.com

And for the true experts:

Alpine Valley:


easttroy.org

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.

Yeah, A-Basin, Breck, Keystone, Copper, etc are all like 1 hour from Denver. I stay at my sisters house in town sometimes and drive up every day for a week.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Skiing in the East sucks 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.

Lol, what are you talking about, sex, booze, weed, and general tomfoolery are the essence of skiing, unless you are a gaper or douhenozzle like Rudy. Proper skiing:

• Video Link

How about this? If you can't bomb every single line on your local hill without stopping, then you don't get to talk smack about skiing. The rule in my family is you don't get to go to Colorado until you can easily handle any run in the State.

So I've got an idea, let's do an SSP ski trip starting in Milwaukee where we will engage in general debauchery and then take three day trips to surrounding mountains. Any forumers who can't either get laid and/or rip the shit out of every line on each of the hills are eliminated.

Then whoever is not eliminated will all go to Denver and have the first Annual SSP Open Ski Championships.

[Chef]

When I moved from Utica to Minneapolis one of the things I didn't expect was that Minneapolis had just as much access to nearby crappy ski hills as Utica did. Afton Alps and Buck Hill in the Twin Cities are not much worse than Wood's Valley and are significantly closer.

[benp]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I was referring to city... not metro. Erie County is enormous... and its southern third (half hour south of city of Buffalo) enters ski country / Appalachian plateau. The city is flat as a pancake... and a 125 ft elevation differential compared to Chicago's 100 ft differential doesn't prove that Chicago is flatter. Maybe Buffalo has one hill of 125 ft while Chicago has two hills of 100 ft. Does that make Chicago flatter? No.

You can find a greater elevation differential in Texas compared to West Virginia... but which one is the Mountain State?

Same scale:
Downtown Buffalo:http://en-us.topographic-map.com/places/14201-9508783/
Chicago Loop:http://en-us.topographic-map.com/places/60601-2053230/

Buffalo Metro: http://en-us.topographic-map.com/pla...ounty-4386556/
Chicago Metro: http://en-us.topographic-map.com/pla...County-142057/

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Chef

When I moved from Utica to Minneapolis one of the things I didn't expect was that Minneapolis had just as much access to nearby crappy ski hills as Utica did. Afton Alps and Buck Hill in the Twin Cities are not much worse than Wood's Valley and are significantly closer.

Woods Valley is cheap and they don't pretend to be anything but a crappy ski slope. At least they are not the parkway...lol

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

in any case, it’s strange to think of pennsylvania as a Great Lakes State.

I think most Pennsylvanians would agree.

It's hard to really consider it a Great Lakes state, having only ~50 miles of shoreline in the far NW corner of the state. It just doesn't have that connection to the Lakes like the other states have.

It's a tough sell to describe New York as a Great Lakes state as well. It's moreso than PA is, but both still have their primary identities as East Coast states due to the outsized influences of NYC and Philly.

[Chef]

Minnesota also doesn't feel like a Great Lakes state if you live in the Twin Cities. Most of the people who call us one don't live here. Duluth is a Great Lakes city and the north shore is a weekend getaway but that is where it ends.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Chef

Minnesota also doesn't feel like a Great Lakes state if you live in the Twin Cities. Most of the people who call us one don't live here. Duluth is a Great Lakes city and the north shore is a weekend getaway but that is where it ends.

Yeah, that's understandable considering the relatively short shoreline up in a pretty unpopulated area. Though I would think that Minnesotans, even those in the Twin Cities, are well aware of the fact that Lake Superior is up there, even doing weekend getaways there. That's the difference I imagine.

A lot of southeastern Pennsylvania folk couldn't even tell you what Pennsylvania's Great Lake is, much less ever travel there. Lake Erie might as well be in Manitoba as far as most Philadelphians are concerned. That's really not much of an exaggeration.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by 10023

This is a hill.

Also, I am going to Austria in the morning.

i'd go to austria in the morning, too, if i could. lately i've been trying to convince the wife to move to new zealand so i should go to austria while i'm still close.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Chef

Minnesota also doesn't feel like a Great Lakes state if you live in the Twin Cities. Most of the people who call us one don't live here. Duluth is a Great Lakes city and the north shore is a weekend getaway but that is where it ends.

minnesota is right behind pennsylvania in the weird to think of as great lakes state category. i don't have many frequent contacts in minneapolis except a brazilian national haha but i never really hear of people going to lake superior much for a weekend. it's all about the smaller lakes (some of which are still so gigantic that you can't see the other side due to the curvature of the earth, i've been to leech lake and others).

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Skiing in the East sucks 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.

Well that's just patently false.

And the reason people don't ski on your ski weekends is that you're out East.

You're just proving my point - experience skiers who actually care about skiing will fly to Western mountains anyway. I've got friends in NYC who ski like 30 days a year, and they're always going to Utah or Whistler.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'd go to austria in the morning, too, if i could. lately i've been trying to convince the wife to move to new zealand so i should go to austria while i'm still close.

From here it's as low as £80 round trip to Innsbruck, and a local train will take you from Innsbruck to St. Anton for €16 each way. It takes 4 hours door to door. And when you get there you've got one of the world's largest interconnected resorts (especially now with a gondola to Lech and Zürs), 5000 vertical feet, awesome off piste terrain and perhaps the world's best aprés-ski.

The point of this is that being located marginally closer to a Vermont resort or an hour or two from a local hill doesn't really mean that much to me.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, that's understandable considering the relatively short shoreline up in a pretty unpopulated area. Though I would think that Minnesotans, even those in the Twin Cities, are well aware of the fact that Lake Superior is up there, even doing weekend getaways there. That's the difference I imagine.

A lot of southeastern Pennsylvania folk couldn't even tell you what Pennsylvania's Great Lake is, much less ever travel there. Lake Erie might as well be in Manitoba as far as most Philadelphians are concerned. That's really not much of an exaggeration.

Wow! People in Pennsylvania must be pretty stupid if they can’t name the only Great Lake that holds the only true shoreline in the state! I think you underestimate the geographical knowledge of most people in your state

[benp]

Originally Posted by 10023

From here it's as low as £80 round trip to Innsbruck, and a local train will take you from Innsbruck to St. Anton for €16 each way. It takes 4 hours door to door. And when you get there you've got one of the world's largest interconnected resorts (especially now with a gondola to Lech and Zürs), 5000 vertical feet, awesome off piste terrain and perhaps the world's best aprés-ski.

The point of this is that being located marginally closer to a Vermont resort or an hour or two from a local hill doesn't really mean that much to me.

So for that's roughly €116 travel and €130/day skiing/accommodations, or $150 travel and $162/day. A 3-day trip (2 nights) should cost about $500.

Travel from Chicago to Vail is roughly $400 travel, hotels start at $300/night, lift tickets about $150/day. A 3-day trip should cost about $1500.

That's why living close to a ski area is important to many people.

[Steely Dan]

this whole skiing discussion is dumb.

if you're an avid downhill skier and convenient access to world class downhill skiing is a top priority for you, then you simply shouldn't live in the great lakes region.

the great lakes region is freaking awesome for so many reasons, but convenient access to world class downhill skiing is absolutely NOT one of them.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

minnesota is right behind pennsylvania in the weird to think of as great lakes state category.

getting this thread back on topic, what do people think about my ranking of great lakes states (those with any amount of great lakes shoreline) based on their degree of "great lakeyness"?

1. michigan - duh!
2. wisconsin - also duh!
3. ohio - cleveland, toledo, sandusky, etc.
4. illinois - sure, the shoreline is small, but over 70% of the state's population lives there
5. new york - yeah, NYC utterly dominates the state, but new york's #2 and #3 metros are on lake erie and lake ontario, respectively
6. indiana - again, a small shoreline, but home to the state's 2nd largest metra area
7. minnesota - duluth is really cool, but quite small compared to the twins over on the missisippi
8. pennsylvania - seems like it would have to be last by default

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

You're just proving my point - experience skiers who actually care about skiing will fly to Western mountains anyway. I've got friends in NYC who ski like 30 days a year, and they're always going to Utah or Whistler.

I agree with all this. I'm just not sure that most people "going skiing" actually fit this demographic (which, again, is why people go to local resorts, rather than Whistler). Weekend getaways, of any type, are often family time, time with friends, etc.

I've done Whistler. It's fantastic, possibly the best skiing on earth. Makes even Colorado look like crap (and the Alps are worse). And I had the added bonus that my closest friend from college was a ski instructor there for a year after graduation and took me backcountry. But a typical family would need 5-10k, a good week, and tons of patience, for such a visit.

I also attended a wedding in Jackson Hole. It was again, wonderful, but incredibly expensive and time consuming. Cost many thousands for just a few days. Wedding was at Ritz Carlton, which, on winter weekends, is over 1k a night (and there aren't really any non-luxury hotels in Jackson Hole). Flying into Jackson Hole on winter weekends is more expensive than flying to Europe.

I don't think these are directly competitive markets. Typical weekend skiers don't care if the hills/powder are world-class, just like someone swimming in the Atlantic doesn't care the beaches don't hold a candle to the Seychelles.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by benp

So for that's roughly €116 travel and €130/day skiing/accommodations, or $150 travel and $162/day. A 3-day trip (2 nights) should cost about $500.

Travel from Chicago to Vail is roughly $400 travel, hotels start at $300/night, lift tickets about $150/day. A 3-day trip should cost about $1500.

That's why living close to a ski area is important to many people.

Flights are actually as low as $50 roundtrip to Denver from O'Hare and Midway. Also, you can get hotels in Frisco for much less than that. Everything in Vail is expensive, but that's because it's the second most hoity toidy resort town after Aspen. That said, I have buddies who live and work in Vail so I just couch surf (well actually lockoff surf, every unit in Vail is required to come with a bedroom and bathroom that can be locked off and rented separately, supposedly some kind of affordable housing thing for the ski bums that run the resort, but now it's an Airbnb subsidy program).