Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Iconic or Ironic - Whistler’s paradigm shift slow to take root

Talk is cheap. And in my business, you get to hear a lot of it. Fortunately, you get to hear some great stories too.
1446alta
Forest-Like roof structure intended for lot 1/9. Photo by Brad Kasselman www.coastphoto.com.

Talk is cheap. And in my business, you get to hear a lot of it. Fortunately, you get to hear some great stories too. Over the last couple of months, I’ve spoken, argued, debated, laughed, exclaimed, snorted, enthused and smiled with some of the most progressive people in the mountain tourism business. However tenuous — however fleeting — what linked them all was their connection to Whistler. And their love of mountain life, of course…

But all of them — to a person — knows just how tenuous Whistler’s position is in today’s fast-changing climate (if you’ll forgive the pun). As Peter Alder reminded me the other day: “When World War II came along, nobody went skiing anymore — not even in neutral Switzerland. Subsequently, a lot of resorts went out of business.”

OK, so World War III isn’t on us just yet. But climate change certainly is. At least that’s if you dare to believe 99.9 per cent of the world’s leading geographers and biologists. And whether we like it or not, Whistler is in the front lines of that battle. “Nature-based tourism is the fastest-growing segment of the global tourism industry,” Arthur DeJong reminded us a few weeks ago. “Those (resorts) that manage to safeguard the integrity of their natural surroundings will be successful. Those who don’t won’t be.”

And it’s definitely become part of the mainstream media discourse. From last week’s New York Times’ article “How Do You Ski If There Is No More Snow?” to Business Week’s recent “Little Green Lies”, urban journalists everywhere can be heard chortling over the plight of snow-eaters around the world. But then, it’s not like the ski business has a great reputation for environmental correctness. Witness Business Week happily dismissing the credibility of an “industry which gorges on energy to create a fantasy of always-plentiful powdered (sic) snow and cosy alpine hideaways…”

Ouch. So what are we really doing about changing perceptions? Other than fancy words and sweet-sounding promises, what are Whistlerites actually doing to ensure that the community’s magic and natural wealth is sustained and protected for future generations?

Last week Mayor Melamed brought up the urgent need for a paradigm shift among Whistler residents. “In everything we do now,” he said, “we have to ask ourselves: “Is this necessary?” It’s a question well worth asking. But it’s how we respond to this question collectively that will really tell the tale…

And it’s not going to be easy. Changing habits hurt. It makes things uncomfortable. Just ask any athlete — it’s hard to train your body to adapt to a new technique. And often you go backwards before you get to go forwards again.

But we really have no choice. Warns DeJong: “If we don’t do anything (about climate change) and the media decides that this is the spear in Whistler’s chest,” he says, “we’re done for. The markets will devalue us in a minute…”

So, the big question in the sky remains: Can we get beyond talk and actually get down to sustainable behaviour? “We’re on the right path,” says Ken Melamed. “But make no mistake. If we don’t transform (our) ideas into actions — and don’t do it soon — we fail!”

Monster trophy homes, monster lifts that go nowhere, monster over-runs on projects that fail to deliver what they were designed to deliver in the first place: is this really the progressive, sustainable Whistler championed in our much-ballyhooed 2020 Vision? Somehow I just can’t connect the dots…

And I’m not alone. “I’ve heard a lot of talk (about sustainability) in Whistler,” says Eldon Beck. “But so far I’ve seen little action.”

Take the latest proposal to create an “iconic” roof structure over the last undeveloped piece of land in Village North — all for the eye-catching sum of $18 million (and based on past muni capital budgets, you might as well double that figure right now). Given all that’s come before, I’ve got to ask the question: Is this really necessary?

“But Whistler taxpayers aren’t going to pay a penny of the costs,” counter its backers. “We’re going to get another world-class facility for free.”

Yeah right, And Fortress won’t eventually make guests and locals pay for their Peak-to-Peak folly. After all we know just how generous private equity firms are. I love fairy tales… don’t you?

Repeat after me: “There is no free lunch.” As one disgruntled Whistler taxpayer put it: “And what about maintenance? A t a time when the municipal budget is becoming squeezed… this roof will prove a sinkhole for maintenance. And if it is such an icon, we will need to maintain it for many years… just to maintain our ‘image’.”

Full disclosure: on the subject of icons at Whistler, I’m fully in the Stephen Vogler camp (see Pique letters to the editor, Nov. 1). To me, peaks like Fissile and Blackcomb and Tremor and Wedge provide all the iconic touchstones we need. Our architecture should complement these marvellous natural gems — not compete with them. Eldon Beck agrees with me: “Good mountain-town design is all about experiencing the senses,” he says. “Successful mountain communities celebrate their environment. They find ways of connecting with their natural surroundings — rather than trying to overwhelm it.”

Furthermore, he says, we should take care of nurturing our “village in the forest” identity. Which begs the question: Do we really want to clearcut this last stand of natural forest within the village boundaries to erect a “forest-like roof structure” in its place?

Sounds kind of absurd to me. And why now, for goodness sake? Why rush into this when construction costs are at their highest, development pressure is at its most intense, and we don’t have a clue what the resort will face once the Olympic parade has departed?

Maybe I don’t get it. Maybe I’m just missing something in the mix. But given the present business climate, I just don’t understand why we’re in such a hurry to get this thing done now. Why not wait until the summer of 2010, when the building jobs will be scarcer and the manpower keener to work?

“But we need a Celebration Plaza,” people tell me. “We need a place to congregate and hand out the victors’ wreaths, and drape the flags and dance the Olympic cha-cha…”

So what’s wrong with our existing plazas? Why not be eco-friendly and use what we already have? Doug Perry tells me you can pack in nearly 18,000 people in Skier’s Plaza (that’s the one by the GLC) if you allow people to creep up the hillsides a little.

And if that’s not enough for VANOC organizers, all you have to do is set up big screens in Mountain Square and Village Square and invite people to participate that way. Heck, you could have a different medal ceremony in a different plaza every night. Think about it. With state-of-the-art sound-and-visual systems, the various medal festivities could rock-and-roll their way through the whole village night-after-night. It could make Calgary’s legendary Electric Avenue Olympic parties pale in comparison.

My perfect partner, Wendy, had an even better idea. “Why not just hand out great big, clear umbrellas with a tasteful Whistler logo on them, and invite everyone to have a good time outside,” she said with her usual matter-of-fact approach to problems. “Think how much money you’d save — no roof, no hassle, no last-minute panic — not to mention the great souvenir people would have at the end of their visit.”

Lest you think she was being ironic, think again. This is a woman who is very close to her Scottish roots. Recycling is a hardwired trait in her family.

But isn’t that the level that we’re all trying to reach?

And please don’t get me wrong — I’m not opposed to building something of lasting value on Lot 1/9.   Like Eldon Beck, I believe this final undeveloped parcel has an important role to play in the overall gestalt of Whistler. But do we really need to get it ‘done’ before the Games?

If we are to believe the climate experts, we don’t have much of a window in which to change our behaviour patterns. Seems like the planet is losing patience. So let’s be wise about the things we do decide to build. Let’s make sure we don’t confuse “wants” for “need”. It makes us look so yesterday...

As Auden Schendler, Aspen’s maverick environmental maven put it so well at the conclusion of “Little Green Lies”: “The idea that green is fun, easy and profitable is dangerous. This is hard work. It’s messy. It’s not always profitable. And companies (or communities) have to get off the mark and start actually doing stuff.”

Are you ready Whistler? On your mark. Get set. Go!