Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Does size matter?

An age-old question is the centre of a new debate in Whistler It’s a question that has been contemplated by generations. For some, it is a measure of self worth, a symbol that defines who you are and what you have accomplished.

An age-old question is the centre of a new debate in Whistler

It’s a question that has been contemplated by generations. For some, it is a measure of self worth, a symbol that defines who you are and what you have accomplished. For others, it may be a matter of insecurity. For still others, it’s just a case of being comfortable. And for some it means money in the bank.

Now Whistler is dealing with the age-old question: Does size matter? More specifically, does the size of a man’s house matter?

Big houses – between 4,000 and 10,000 square feet – have become, in the last couple of years, one of the hottest items in an already toasty Whistler real estate market. More than 70 Whistler homes sold for $1 million or more last year. The sale of the 5,000 square foot Akasha last February for $7.9 million – the most expensive house sold in Canada in 2000 – was a watershed for Whistler. The house was built on spec by Andrew Munster, but only after he’d put considerable time in to studying where the market was going. Since Akasha was built a number of other large homes in the Sunridge subdivision have sprung up.

Other signs the market for large homes is booming include Intrawest’s The Peaks, a 60-lot subdivision above Creekside which will allow homes of between 4,000 and 7,500 square feet, and the consolidation of two lots in the new Treetops area to allow a house of 5,000 square feet. Individually the two Treetops lots were allowed houses of 3,135 and 3,025 square feet.

The demand for big homes is in many ways a tribute to Whistler’s success as a resort. Skiers and golfers have found Whistler and now, with the benefit of a weak Canadian dollar relative to the American buck, the international market has discovered Whistler real estate.

"There is an increasing perception internationally and in Vancouver that Whistler is good comparable value to other North American ski resorts," says Whistler Real Estate Co. president Pat Kelly.

Whistler’s self-imposed limit on development may also be helping fuel the market for large homes. As there are no more development rights – bed units – being handed out, some people with sizeable pieces of land have decided building a large single family home is the best return on their investment.

The fact that Whistler "downzoned" RR1 properties – larger pieces of land with only basic zoning – a few years ago has probably contributed to a sense of urgency about realizing a return. The municipality changed the minimum size required for subdivision of a RR1 property from 20 acres to 100 acres. There have also been efforts to reduce the number of permitted uses on RR1 land.

Some of the conditions that have created the market for large homes – a successful international resort, a limit on development – are goals and principles Whistler has held for a long time. But the town is only beginning to grapple with the concept of big houses and what they mean for the community and the resort.

To some, large homes are a sign of the growing Aspenization of Whistler. In that Colorado town, where a decade ago million dollar homes were considered tear-downs, large, often gated estate homes owned by Hollywood stars and CEOs are a fact of life. People who fly into the Roaring Fork Valley in their private jets expect the only restrictions on the size of their house to be imposed by their bank manager.

Beaver Creek, another Colorado resort town, is symbolic of the Sodom and Gomorrah to which some people think big houses will lead. A Beaver Creek manager proudly explained his town’s philosophy to Whistler councillors a few years ago. Beaver Creek, he said, caters not to the rich, but to the filthy rich.

That’s not the way Whistler likes to see itself. Although there are plenty of people who find real estate prices and the cost of living here way beyond their reach, Whistler has tried to include people of all income levels in the quest to build a community as well as a resort. The emphasis placed on employee housing is an example.

Councillor Ken Melamed has been the most outspoken critic of big houses. Last May, when Seagate Software entrepreneur Greg Kerfoot’s proposal for a 7,800 square foot house on Lake Placid Road came to council, Melamed made his position clear. He said it would set a dangerous precedent for the community and large houses in general will have an impact on the affordability of Whistler.

"This is the antithesis of sustainable development," Melamed said. "What entitles this gentleman to build 7,800 square feet? He’s already allowed 5,000 square feet."

Melamed brought a global perspective to his arguments, citing the limited "carrying capacity" of the planet and the average person’s "footprint" on earth. "If everyone had as big a footprint as him and his family we would require more than 30 earths," Melamed said.

Melamed had similar arguments against the bonus densities proposed last month for Glenn and Larry Houghton’s properties, which would allow them to increase the size of the homes they are building at Taluswood from 3,500 square feet to 5,000. Melamed said he did not support homes greater than 3,500 square feet and pointed to American ski resorts that have "lost their character and soul" by allowing big houses.

"One of the things that characterizes our resort is we have a community. It’s important to keep that, to keep our employees here," Melamed said.

He suggested that allowing density bonuses will encourage the tear down of older, more affordable homes.

"This trend is driving out the middle class, it’s not just the people in subsidized housing," he said.

The affordability argument has been challenged: Is any single family home in Whistler "affordable" by any definition? More to the point, it has been suggested by some that if Whistler does not make efforts to accommodate the high end of the real estate market that those people may buy homes in places like Emerald Estates, thereby directly reducing the "affordable" end of the single family market.

Advocates of large homes have argued that in fact, they may help Whistler’s financial picture. Property taxes, which this year will account for 42 per cent of the municipality’s revenues, are based on property assessments. The higher a property’s assessment, the more revenue generated for the municipality. Large houses, naturally, are worth more than smaller houses.

But it’s not just size that counts when it comes to property assessors and builders. When a person decides to make the investment in a big home they usually pull out all the stops: marble countertops, slate floors, custom millwork – only the best will do. These types of materials increase a property’s assessed value, but a finely finished custom home also requires more labour during construction. Increased labour costs contribute to a property’s assessed value. They also mean more dollars in the pockets of craftsmen – who are usually local residents. And the homes themselves become showcases for local craftsmanship.

As for large homes running counter to the idea of sustainability, Whistler Mayor Hugh O’Reilly has suggested that adoption of the Natural Step principles in construction might be a condition of approval, at least in cases where council can impose such conditions.

The other arguments in favour of big houses are that because they are generally only occupied a few weeks of the year, they do not make significant demands on the municipal infrastructure.

And, finally, big houses may be a small part of the solution to long-term employee housing. Because the owners of large houses use them so infrequently, many like to have caretakers living in the homes. It has been suggested that detached suites could even be considered for some large homes. Such suites may be suitable for a young family or a retired couple.

Of course there are other arguments against big houses. One that even some proponents of big houses will cite is that there are homes in Whistler that are too big for the lots they occupy. In most cases they are in neighbourhoods of large houses, so the situation is not like in some cities where so-called monster homes are dwarfing their neighbours.

Interestingly, Aspen recently passed legislation limiting the size of homes on city lots to 5,000 square feet, precisely because monster homes were dwarfing their neighbours. Previously homes of up to 6,800 square feet were allowed on 60,000 square foot city lots.

While the legislation had some public support, there was also significant opposition from people who owned tear-downs. They felt the new limits in effect downzoned their own property.

"If this is because we don’t like big homes, I’d suggest the genie is already out of the bottle," said one Aspenite.

And that may be the case for Whistler, too. Big houses are generally in subdivisions such as Sunridge, Horstman Estates and the future The Peaks, places where everyone knows the rules up front. The only other area they are found is on RR1 acreage, which allows a single family home of up to 5,000 square feet. In most of these instances previous attempts to get the RR1 land rezoned for some sort of multi-unit development has failed and the owner has had nothing to fall back on except the ability to build a large house.

But increasingly big houses are attracting public attention. There is the bonus density application by the Houghtons. The B.C. Rail lands on the west side of the valley will be turned into 24 estate lots, the only question is whether the lands will be subdivided in to 24 20-acre parcels, and all 530 acres utilized, or whether they will be rezoned to 24 parcels of 4-7 acres each and the remaining portion of the land dedicated to the municipality. There are also several other smaller parcels of RR1 land around the valley which could be used for large houses.

Someone has even commissioned a Vancouver firm to conduct a poll of Whistler residents’ feelings on big houses. And emotional, gut feelings – despite all the rational arguments for and against large homes – may still be at the heart of the matter.

Whistler council’s initial reaction to the proposed Kerfoot home last May was more shock and disbelief than anything else. The presentation, which was a courtesy call rather than a formal application, was not helped by the fact it was the first large home to land on council’s lap.

Afterwards, the architect for the home said he’d never faced such a hostile reception.

All indications are Whistler will be seeing more large homes in the future. Will they be the ruination of the community, creating resentment and an us-and-them division? Will they provide financial salvation for the municipality? Are rich folks just like us and can they add to the community?

It comes back to the age-old question: Does size matter?



Comments