13 ms·

Honest question, have any of these ski towns tried allowing the construction of a significant amount of housing? I.e. housing growth that actually scales with t

Honest question, have any of these ski towns tried allowing the construction of a significant amount of housing? I.e. housing growth that actually scales with the growth in demand? None of the ones I've visited seem at all dense. (Been to Vail, Beaver Creek, Park City, and all over Tahoe.) All the consternation over the housing crisis is maddening to me because it seems like universally (in the US), we're willing to try everything and anything except the one thing that basic economics suggests would actually work. We're like a person who needs to drive a screw but will only use wrenches, hammers, and saws.

zz865 5y ago
I think one issue is places like Vail, PC, Tahoe are already spread out. Going there on vacation doesn't feel special at all, just feels like you're in some generic suburb. Places like Tremblant are nicer as there is a compact walkable town where all the buildings are 5 stories tall.
lumost 5y ago
A few of the towns in the article have vacancy rates greater than 50%. If the free market can support a 50% occupancy rate, there isn't a great reason to think that it can't support a 90 or 95% occupancy rate. Increasing the housing stock by 50% to house 5% of the towns population seems inefficient for both investment owners and workers.
armenarmen 5y ago
I’m not aware of any, no. But I’d love to see one of these cities take a pro building stance
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ghiculescu 5y ago
I ask genuinely: is the basic economic argument in a mountain town like CB the same as it is in a place like Denver? It feels like it might be different given how much surrounding land is (federally) protected, or just looks super expensive / impractical to build on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bobsmooth 5y ago
The article addresses this. In short, NIMBYism from second and third home owners makes this difficult.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  That's interesting; where I'm from, people only get votes at one municipality (I they qualify for multiple, they choose one as the primary residence), so any people with secondary homes for vacations or rentals are automatically outvoted by the actual residents in local elections.
  - buttercraft 5y ago
    It's not about voting, it's about showing up to Planning and Zoning meetings and opposing anything that might obstruct scenic views or negatively impact property values. Most significant developments require rezoning and therefore a public input period. Then there are outsized impact fees and red tape from the city and county once it gets past P&Z.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Actual residents may be concerned about pissing off the 2nd and 3rd home owners, who can be quite vocal even if they don’t have a vote. Locals depend on them for revenue, and might know them personally and like them. This is covered somewhat in the Outside article.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Damn. Should have changed so that only residents get a vote.
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    Nobody should get a vote. Residents are the worst about opposing more housing. The ONLY constitutional basis for getting a say over how much housing your neighbor builds is excluding Black people (see the appellate ruling, Ambler Realty v City of Euclid). All zoning in the United States is based on the power of that ruling to keep Black people out.
bluefirebrand 5y ago
In Canada a lot of our Ski towns are in provincial or federal parks, meaning there will never be significant housing built, to protect the parkland.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Which major Canadian resorts are in parks besides Lake Louise/Sunshine? I know Mt. Tremblant is in a park, but only the mountain itself and not the town for example.
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    Whistler / Blackcomb are in provincial parks as well I believe. Whistler village might not be, I can't seem to find firm confirmation of that.
Swizec 5y ago
You see the problem is one of incentives. New people want more housing but can’t vote because they aren’t residents. Old people want high real estate prices and can vote because they’re residents or own property. Guess who wins when it’s time for local political leadership to decide on important issues. Now if housing wasn’t considered an investment and prices were kept flat somehow, that would solve the nimby problem immediately. But it would also bankrupt several generations of existing homeowners so we can’t do that.
- nradov 5y ago
  If you actually talk to the existing homeowners you'll find that they're more concerned about maintaining a certain lifestyle than real estate values.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. I think that it's just kind of taboo to admit that property value is important. Granted, I don't think it's their only motivation. Obviously, lifestyle is a big factor for these people too.
  - themitigating 5y ago
    If they are being asked about why they voted against expansion wouldn't it be in their best interest to provide a subjective reason that is difficult to argue against instead of saying "money"
the_gipsy 5y ago
> the one thing that basic economics suggests would actually work More houses attract more people which increases housing cost.
bamboozled 5y ago
If your read the article, they cover this topic. There's also a kind of preservation of the culture of the town. Which I kind of agree with. Then there is also the fact that a lot of these places aren't used for housing, they're used as play houses or AirBnB's. So just adding more houses will likely mean more empty stuff in the town, probably making the problem worse.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  So make empty houses (and AirBnB's) illegal (aka super taxed out the wazzoo). The people that live in a place should be able to say what they do and do not want in their town.
  - 88913527 5y ago
    I'm not convinced this is quite it. The housing demand (by real, live physical people, not remote investors) is likely seasonal. Town like Tahoe might have 10x the number of people in them 12 weeks of the year. Unless we're setting up tents, we'll need permanent structures available for short term rental.
    - verve_rat 5y ago
      That is called a hotel. What is wrong with building a hotel and pricing it accordingly?
  - umeshunni 5y ago
    The irony is that most of these towns depend entirely on tourists for theirs existence. Those tourist dollars depend on Airbnbs (no one is permitting new hotels in these towns).
    - bamboozled 5y ago
      I'd imagine these towns survived just fine without AirBnBs for the last hundreds of years?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rsync 5y ago
"None of the ones I've visited seem at all dense. (Been to Vail, Beaver Creek, Park City, and all over Tahoe.)" Would you want that ? When you visited these places, did you wish they had more, and larger, buildings ? Visiting or living in a "ski town" is, ipso facto, an aesthetic choice that one makes. It is not imposed on anyone nor is it a right to be conferred. I am open minded to the idea that some people prefer a never-ending monoculture of marginally dense just-barely-sub-urban living areas. I hate this idea, however, and I hope you will look elsewhere to pursue it.
inerg 5y ago
It's worth remembering that the lack of density is what people like so much about the towns. I can say personally an apartment building makes it hard to enjoy the mountain view when you're on a stroll through the town :) The unfortunate reality is that I think the only way to truly prevent this is to only allow someone who is working in town to own a home with a percentage allowance for remote workers. The biggest step being to prevent vacation homes from being a thing. Even still I don't think this fully solves the problem as most of the positions in mountain towns are low skilled so generally aren't super well paid. There's a few compounding factors that the article touches on but doesn't really put much emphasis. I'm up in the Canadian Rockies but I have friends spread out among a few of the towns so I'll try and give some perspective across the areas. Lake Louise: Not really worth commenting on this as almost all homes are owned by local businesses due to national park rules. Banff: Limited due to how land ownership works within the national park as well as limits the Federal government puts on expanding the town. Thankfully due to the land ownership constraints it avoids the vacation property issue some what although not entirely. This town also pickups spill over from Lake Louise. Canmore: Catches the remaining spill over from Lake Louise and Banff further constraining holding it's own workers. This is the closest town to the national park so lots of people own vacation homes here. This town is surrounded by a national park, provincial park, and by Aboriginal land so it has no room to grow. The town has put limits on where air bnb's can be run but they're so profitable people eat the current fines. An interesting side note with this town is that at the start of the pandemic a lot of the people with vacation homes went here overloading the local grocery stores ability to supply things. The shelves were extra bare for weeks which was quite frustrating. Fernie: Was doing alright before the pandemic but was feeling the squeeze a bit. As soon as working from home was the norm for people houses disappeared in a flash and what was left almost doubled in price over the two years. In those two years my friends got priced out of the market. A lot of developers here got burned in the oil crash in 2008 which will probably slow any quick growth to expand the town. Golden: Don't have any friends here but from what I've seen there's been lots of aggressive development but more on the nicer vacation home side. Nothing that would fit as a good starter house for a family.
Tempest1981 5y ago
Logistics. Crested Butte is 3 hours from the nearest larger town, Grand Junction. Assuming good weather. You need workers and materials to build new housing. There is already a shortage of workers. Builders in Grand Junction can make far more profit by building in Grand Junction, vs driving 6 hours each day to Crested Butte and back. Same with hauling materials.
- rjsw 5y ago
  In other ski towns you build during the off-seasons and the construction workers live in the apartments that would be otherwise empty.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    ... or "mobile" construction workers who live year-round or part-year in RVs and the like, and move to where the work is.
  - pcmoney 5y ago
    Crested Butte is not just a ski town. Most ski towns in CO are not just ski towns. But CB is especially popular with mountain bikers and is busy almost year round.
    - rjsw 5y ago
      European ski and mountain bike towns tend to be only busy in winter and summer, they are empty in spring and autumn.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
the article points out something like 66% of the houses already there sit empty (averaged across the year). does that mean the "build more housing" idea is not the problem?
- buttercraft 5y ago
  They're empty most of the year. Many second home owners in these places only use the homes for a few weeks out of the year.
seattle_spring 5y ago
Is lack of housing really the problem? The resorts themselves are already far too crowded, and it's not like there's a unlimited amount of skiiable area to expend to. Not to mention how awful dense housing would be in a supposedly remote area. It would turn it into "only some can access this area" to "everyone can access but no one can enjoy it."
- lbarrow 5y ago
  Yes, lack of housing is a huge part of the problem. The entire article is about how housing has gotten so expensive in these areas that few of the locals can afford to live there anymore, which leads to crippling worker shortages and many other problems.
carabiner 5y ago
RTFA. It's NIMBYism (the same as anywhere else) plus the towns being carved out of public lands. They can't build more.

zz865 5y ago

I think one issue is places like Vail, PC, Tahoe are already spread out. Going there on vacation doesn't feel special at all, just feels like you're in some generic suburb. Places like Tremblant are nicer as there is a compact walkable town where all the buildings are 5 stories tall.

lumost 5y ago

A few of the towns in the article have vacancy rates greater than 50%. If the free market can support a 50% occupancy rate, there isn't a great reason to think that it can't support a 90 or 95% occupancy rate. Increasing the housing stock by 50% to house 5% of the towns population seems inefficient for both investment owners and workers.

armenarmen 5y ago

I’m not aware of any, no. But I’d love to see one of these cities take a pro building stance

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ghiculescu 5y ago

I ask genuinely: is the basic economic argument in a mountain town like CB the same as it is in a place like Denver? It feels like it might be different given how much surrounding land is (federally) protected, or just looks super expensive / impractical to build on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bobsmooth 5y ago

The article addresses this. In short, NIMBYism from second and third home owners makes this difficult.

PeterisP 5y ago
That's interesting; where I'm from, people only get votes at one municipality (I they qualify for multiple, they choose one as the primary residence), so any people with secondary homes for vacations or rentals are automatically outvoted by the actual residents in local elections.
- buttercraft 5y ago
  It's not about voting, it's about showing up to Planning and Zoning meetings and opposing anything that might obstruct scenic views or negatively impact property values. Most significant developments require rezoning and therefore a public input period. Then there are outsized impact fees and red tape from the city and county once it gets past P&Z.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Actual residents may be concerned about pissing off the 2nd and 3rd home owners, who can be quite vocal even if they don’t have a vote. Locals depend on them for revenue, and might know them personally and like them. This is covered somewhat in the Outside article.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Damn. Should have changed so that only residents get a vote.
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  Nobody should get a vote. Residents are the worst about opposing more housing. The ONLY constitutional basis for getting a say over how much housing your neighbor builds is excluding Black people (see the appellate ruling, Ambler Realty v City of Euclid). All zoning in the United States is based on the power of that ruling to keep Black people out.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

In Canada a lot of our Ski towns are in provincial or federal parks, meaning there will never be significant housing built, to protect the parkland.

mthoms 5y ago
Which major Canadian resorts are in parks besides Lake Louise/Sunshine? I know Mt. Tremblant is in a park, but only the mountain itself and not the town for example.
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  Whistler / Blackcomb are in provincial parks as well I believe. Whistler village might not be, I can't seem to find firm confirmation of that.

Swizec 5y ago

You see the problem is one of incentives. New people want more housing but can’t vote because they aren’t residents. Old people want high real estate prices and can vote because they’re residents or own property. Guess who wins when it’s time for local political leadership to decide on important issues. Now if housing wasn’t considered an investment and prices were kept flat somehow, that would solve the nimby problem immediately. But it would also bankrupt several generations of existing homeowners so we can’t do that.

nradov 5y ago
If you actually talk to the existing homeowners you'll find that they're more concerned about maintaining a certain lifestyle than real estate values.
- mthoms 5y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. I think that it's just kind of taboo to admit that property value is important. Granted, I don't think it's their only motivation. Obviously, lifestyle is a big factor for these people too.
- themitigating 5y ago
  If they are being asked about why they voted against expansion wouldn't it be in their best interest to provide a subjective reason that is difficult to argue against instead of saying "money"

the_gipsy 5y ago

> the one thing that basic economics suggests would actually work More houses attract more people which increases housing cost.

bamboozled 5y ago

If your read the article, they cover this topic. There's also a kind of preservation of the culture of the town. Which I kind of agree with. Then there is also the fact that a lot of these places aren't used for housing, they're used as play houses or AirBnB's. So just adding more houses will likely mean more empty stuff in the town, probably making the problem worse.

verve_rat 5y ago
So make empty houses (and AirBnB's) illegal (aka super taxed out the wazzoo). The people that live in a place should be able to say what they do and do not want in their town.
- 88913527 5y ago
  I'm not convinced this is quite it. The housing demand (by real, live physical people, not remote investors) is likely seasonal. Town like Tahoe might have 10x the number of people in them 12 weeks of the year. Unless we're setting up tents, we'll need permanent structures available for short term rental.
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    That is called a hotel. What is wrong with building a hotel and pricing it accordingly?
- umeshunni 5y ago
  The irony is that most of these towns depend entirely on tourists for theirs existence. Those tourist dollars depend on Airbnbs (no one is permitting new hotels in these towns).
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    I'd imagine these towns survived just fine without AirBnBs for the last hundreds of years?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rsync 5y ago

"None of the ones I've visited seem at all dense. (Been to Vail, Beaver Creek, Park City, and all over Tahoe.)" Would you want that ? When you visited these places, did you wish they had more, and larger, buildings ? Visiting or living in a "ski town" is, ipso facto, an aesthetic choice that one makes. It is not imposed on anyone nor is it a right to be conferred. I am open minded to the idea that some people prefer a never-ending monoculture of marginally dense just-barely-sub-urban living areas. I hate this idea, however, and I hope you will look elsewhere to pursue it.

inerg 5y ago

It's worth remembering that the lack of density is what people like so much about the towns. I can say personally an apartment building makes it hard to enjoy the mountain view when you're on a stroll through the town :) The unfortunate reality is that I think the only way to truly prevent this is to only allow someone who is working in town to own a home with a percentage allowance for remote workers. The biggest step being to prevent vacation homes from being a thing. Even still I don't think this fully solves the problem as most of the positions in mountain towns are low skilled so generally aren't super well paid. There's a few compounding factors that the article touches on but doesn't really put much emphasis. I'm up in the Canadian Rockies but I have friends spread out among a few of the towns so I'll try and give some perspective across the areas. Lake Louise: Not really worth commenting on this as almost all homes are owned by local businesses due to national park rules. Banff: Limited due to how land ownership works within the national park as well as limits the Federal government puts on expanding the town. Thankfully due to the land ownership constraints it avoids the vacation property issue some what although not entirely. This town also pickups spill over from Lake Louise. Canmore: Catches the remaining spill over from Lake Louise and Banff further constraining holding it's own workers. This is the closest town to the national park so lots of people own vacation homes here. This town is surrounded by a national park, provincial park, and by Aboriginal land so it has no room to grow. The town has put limits on where air bnb's can be run but they're so profitable people eat the current fines. An interesting side note with this town is that at the start of the pandemic a lot of the people with vacation homes went here overloading the local grocery stores ability to supply things. The shelves were extra bare for weeks which was quite frustrating. Fernie: Was doing alright before the pandemic but was feeling the squeeze a bit. As soon as working from home was the norm for people houses disappeared in a flash and what was left almost doubled in price over the two years. In those two years my friends got priced out of the market. A lot of developers here got burned in the oil crash in 2008 which will probably slow any quick growth to expand the town. Golden: Don't have any friends here but from what I've seen there's been lots of aggressive development but more on the nicer vacation home side. Nothing that would fit as a good starter house for a family.

Tempest1981 5y ago

Logistics. Crested Butte is 3 hours from the nearest larger town, Grand Junction. Assuming good weather. You need workers and materials to build new housing. There is already a shortage of workers. Builders in Grand Junction can make far more profit by building in Grand Junction, vs driving 6 hours each day to Crested Butte and back. Same with hauling materials.

rjsw 5y ago
In other ski towns you build during the off-seasons and the construction workers live in the apartments that would be otherwise empty.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  ... or "mobile" construction workers who live year-round or part-year in RVs and the like, and move to where the work is.
- pcmoney 5y ago
  Crested Butte is not just a ski town. Most ski towns in CO are not just ski towns. But CB is especially popular with mountain bikers and is busy almost year round.
  - rjsw 5y ago
    European ski and mountain bike towns tend to be only busy in winter and summer, they are empty in spring and autumn.

jjtheblunt 5y ago

the article points out something like 66% of the houses already there sit empty (averaged across the year). does that mean the "build more housing" idea is not the problem?

buttercraft 5y ago
They're empty most of the year. Many second home owners in these places only use the homes for a few weeks out of the year.

seattle_spring 5y ago

Is lack of housing really the problem? The resorts themselves are already far too crowded, and it's not like there's a unlimited amount of skiiable area to expend to. Not to mention how awful dense housing would be in a supposedly remote area. It would turn it into "only some can access this area" to "everyone can access but no one can enjoy it."

lbarrow 5y ago
Yes, lack of housing is a huge part of the problem. The entire article is about how housing has gotten so expensive in these areas that few of the locals can afford to live there anymore, which leads to crippling worker shortages and many other problems.

carabiner 5y ago

RTFA. It's NIMBYism (the same as anywhere else) plus the towns being carved out of public lands. They can't build more.