Investors evaluating resort markets such as Aspen, Vail, or Park City often apply the same criteria to newer destinations like Idaho’s Wood River Valley. According to Matthew Gelso, Associate Broker at Paul Kenny and Matt Bogue Commercial Real Estate, this approach overlooks critical differences created by geographic isolation and lower development density, which shape investment opportunities and risks in distinct ways.
“Resort markets are, and this market is even, it’s going to be different than Vail or Park City or Aspen because it’s less developed,” Gelso says. “We’re relatively far from a major metro area like even Boise, which isn’t a major market at this point. We’re still two and a half hours away from Boise.”
Gelso’s experience in the region underscores a key lesson: treating all resort markets as interchangeable can mislead investors about the risks, returns, and strategies that are more appropriate for less mature destinations.
The Metropolitan Proximity Factor
Gelso emphasizes that the Wood River Valley’s distance from major cities fundamentally changes its market dynamics. “It’s not like Tahoe, where you’ve got 8 million, 10 million people in the Bay Area. Park City, you’ve got Salt Lake right there with a few million people. You got Denver and the whole Front Range with Aspen and Vail,” he says.
Unlike established destinations anchored by large nearby populations, Wood River Valley’s isolation limits the number of weekend visitors, reduces drive-by traffic, and shrinks the pool of investors who can visit properties easily. This lack of a nearby population base, Gelso argues, keeps the market less mature than its better-connected peers.
However, Gelso sees this isolation as an opportunity. “We’re still a developing market, but it’s less mature than some of those markets. I think there’s a significant opportunity here. Being farther from a major metro, I think that’s what created that. It’s one of the factors anyway.”
The “Under-Demolished” Opportunity
A defining feature of Wood River Valley, according to Gelso, is its “under demolished” status. His partner uses this term to describe Ketchum, where many older buildings remain, offering redevelopment potential that has already been exhausted in markets like Aspen and Vail.
This creates a different set of opportunities for investors pursuing value-add strategies. Unlike in Aspen or Vail, where redevelopment cycles have already played out, Wood River Valley still offers sites where the highest and best use has not yet been realized.
Development patterns also reflect this difference. “There hasn’t been any spec, really, any, like big spec commercial building,” Gelso says. Most new construction has focused on multifamily projects and workforce housing rather than speculative commercial properties.
As a result, investors looking for stabilized, cash-flowing commercial assets may find limited options. Instead, those comfortable with longer timelines and higher execution risk may see opportunities that are no longer available in more developed resort markets.
The Cash Flow Conversation
When outside investors inquire about Wood River Valley, Gelso begins by clarifying their investment goals. “If they say, ‘I’m looking for an outstanding cash on cash return, with cash flow,’ I’d say, well, then you should probably look in Boise or Twin Falls. Or somewhere else nationally, because that’s not what drives investment return here,” he says.
According to Gelso, the primary investment thesis in Wood River Valley is long-term appreciation rather than immediate income. “The big reward is probably going to be that long-term appreciation,” he says, noting that investors must be comfortable with lower cap rates and more extended hold periods.
This has created a buyer pool composed mainly of individuals who can wait for appreciation rather than relying on cash flow. Gelso notes that many buyers pay cash, so higher interest rates have not significantly dampened demand. “Most of them are cash, so it doesn’t really have a huge impact, because they’re not paying cash,” he says.
The Risk Profile Difference
Gelso argues that the risk profile of less-mature resort markets differs from that of both urban markets and established resort destinations. “The risks are going to be minimal because it’s space-constrained and it’s very desirable,” he says. “For smaller problems in the macro market, this is a pretty safe place because it’s space-constrained and it’s very desirable.”
However, he acknowledges that large-scale economic crises would still impact the market. “If things are crashing here, then that almost certainly means there’s a massive macro event, and the economy’s everywhere crashing,” Gelso says.
In other words, Wood River Valley may offer some downside protection during moderate downturns due to limited development and high desirability. Still, it remains exposed to broader economic shocks like any real estate market.
The Maturity Trajectory Question
Gelso’s analysis raises the question of whether Wood River Valley will eventually resemble established resort markets or if its geographic isolation will keep it on a separate path. The ongoing lack of proximity to major metros may restrict future development, potentially preserving the “under-demolished” character that currently creates opportunity for investors.
For those considering investment, this presents a timing dilemma: is Wood River Valley at the start of a development cycle that will eventually match Aspen or Vail, or will it remain less mature due to its isolation? Gelso suggests the answer lies somewhere in between: the market will develop further, but likely at a slower pace and on a smaller scale than in destinations with better metropolitan access.
A Framework for Emerging Resort Markets
Gelso’s perspective provides a framework for evaluating other emerging resort markets: examine their distance from major metros, compare their development maturity to established destinations, and determine whether the investment thesis relies on cash flow or long-term appreciation. In isolated, less developed markets, investors should expect distinct return profiles and risk factors compared to established resort areas.
Whether this framework holds for the Wood River Valley will depend on how the market performs over time, particularly in terms of appreciation and resilience during downturns. However, Gelso’s observations make clear that treating all resort markets as interchangeable can lead investors to overlook the structural differences that shape returns in less mature destinations.
