Everyone plays it out to absolutely sucking for snow quality, but is that just in comparison with some of its neighbours? (Sunshine). I lived in Canmore off and on for over 10 years and now probably moving back. My situation is that when I lived there, I avoided Norquay because my buddy said it sucked and wasn't worth it, why not go to Sunshine.
What have you heard is true... Norquay really does suck, is small, often icy, and definitely does not get much snow (and not just compared to Sunshine, but in general). There are many towns in Canada that get this much snow, and not many ski hills that get less (300cm).
That being said, I've had more than a few amazing days there. Often when the storms move in from the NorthEast and you'll get more snow here & in the foothills than at Sunshine. They have some challenging runs, a pretty decent park, and you can hit it easy right besides town... not to mention the rad ski-out back down to the Juniper Hotel on the highway (a must do on GT Snowracers).
My question is a theoretical one. If Norquay was say in Red Deer instead of next to Sunshine, would it still be known as the ice field ride of the rockies or is it suddenly in the boat of Castle Mountain because it's the only mountain around so to speak. Kinda like how Kimberley is the much smaller known sister of Fernie, but Kimberley still gets magnificent snow too.
I'm not really sure what you mean by the Castle reference... Castle being the super sick, steep, and snowy ski hill down by Fernie. Kimberley doesn't get magnificent snow and is predominently a family resort (actually less than half of Fernie or Castle's snowfall).
Perhaps some riders who have actually ridden Norquay a lot within the last few years can weigh in on this for me. Preferably also having experience with the dumps and quality of SV.
I lived in Banff for 7 years and rode Norquay about 40+/- times, much less than Sunshine or Lake Louise. I'm kind of a snow-stats junkie so if you are more interested in that feel free to PM me.