Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Feature - Big Houses

How big is too big?
expensive_house

The debate over house size continues as real estate values climb

Is a house that can double as a hanger for a 747 too big? Well, like a lot of things, it’s all relative.

In the winter of 2000 a house high on Sunridge plateau sold for $7.9 million. Built by local contractor/developer Andy Munster, it is grandly named Akasha and came complete with its own indoor swimming pool. It was reported that there was another buyer who would have been willing to pay more than $7.9 million.

Since then several even more elaborate houses have been built and the asking prices are millions more, although they have yet to sell and Akasha remains the most expensive house ever sold in Whistler.

We’ve come a long way. In 1965 lots developed at Alta Vista could be reserved with a $100 deposit. The lots sold for a few thousand dollars and owners built basic A-frame and gothic-arch cabins on the properties. In the late ’70s lots were developed at Whistler Cay and sold at the outrageous price of $50,000. During the recession of 1982-83 the price of some lots in Whistler again dropped to just a few thousand dollars. But they’ve risen steadily ever since.

In recent years the concept of a house at Whistler has gone way beyond being just a cabin in the woods. These houses – many of which are built on spec. – are not only big (by Whistler standards some would say huge) but built using only the highest quality materials and craftsmanship. For lack of a better term you could call these homes superluxe, or as they are known in some circles "steroid homes."

So who’s buying them? The purchaser of Akasha is a dot-com millionaire. Certainly the high-tech sector has helped drive the market for the last couple of years, but even as the bottom has dropped out of tech stocks Whistler real estate has remained in demand.

The trend for these large houses really began about 10 years ago, which is when million dollar homes first began to appear in local real-estate listings. At the time there was a certain amount of awe amongst locals that Whistler had joined the seven figures club. It was hard to imagine someone would pay that sort of money for a vacation home. After all, many people still thought of Whistler as a place of A-frames and club cabins.

In the late ’80s and early ’90s Whistler was in full rah, rah mode. The community remembered the deep recession of the early ’80s and the sight of abandoned construction projects, including the long-gestating conference centre. So when the economy turned the corner and construction resumed in the village it did so with a vengeance. Every fall would see a new hotel pop up or a new condo development being marketed. As the village expanded its popularity grew. Snow Country magazine regularly heralded Whistler as North America’s #1 ski resort, a title that was also bestowed by Ski and other magazines. Anyone with a business interest in Whistler would be quick to assure visitors that Whistler was now a world class resort.

What does world class mean? To many it means sky-high real estate and an almost unaffordable lifestyle. In 1985 the average lot price was $45,000; today it is pushing $400,000. In the same time frame the average price of a chalet has risen from $120,000 to close to $1 million.

It’s obvious to many that these prices are driving out the very families that helped build Whistler in the first place. Has Whistler become too popular for its own good, a victim of its own success? Once again it depends on who you ask.

Certainly municipal councils have had concerns about over-development from Whistler’s inception as a resort municipality. To assuage some of those concerns a bed unit cap was put in place. For hotels, that limit has been reached, and even exceeded.

When it comes to single family homes, the bed cap does not have quite the same effect on development. A single family home, whether it’s 1,200 square feet or 7,000 square feet, is still considered six bed units under the official community plan. For some this is a problem; a 7,000 square foot home is going to require more services and put more stress on municipal infrastructure than a 1,200 square foot home. Others argue that the larger homes are generally occupied less frequently than smaller homes, and therefore – on a yearly average – are less taxing on municipal infrastructure and services.

In the early ’90s there was a feeling Whistler was missing out on a potential market by limiting houses to 3,500 square feet. That’s when the first large-home subdivision, Horstman Estates on Blackcomb, was approved. There were already a handful of large homes on large lots, but how many people were there to purchase such homes at Whistler? And who would build such gigantic homes purely on the speculation that they could later sell them for a considerable profit?

Now it seems as if that is where all the action in the Whistler real estate market is. The Chateau du Lac, a 7,000 square foot home situated on 4.8 acres overlooking Nita Lake, is listed at $11.9 million. Greg Kerfoot is building a 5,000 square foot home, plus indoor ice rink, on property overlooking Alpha Lake. Rezoning of the B.C. Rail lands, which is almost complete, will see 29 estate lots developed on the west side of Alta Lake. John Zen may build two 5,000 square foot homes on his Alpha Creek properties.

In some instances these large homes are a result of the municipality’s refusal to allow rezoning. Some owners of acreage properties would prefer to have their land rezoned to allow for condos or a mixture of market and employee housing, but Whistler councils have refused, siting the bed unit cap. The only viable option left for property owners is to build a 5,000 square foot estate home.

It’s also important to point out that most of the builders of these large homes are locals. They have contributed to the community for years; they are providing employment for local, skilled labour. They would also contend that they are providing a product for which there is a demand.

Most people who do buy homes in Whistler are still local or from the Lower Mainland, although many purchasers of estate homes are American.

As Pat Kelly, president of Whistler Real Estate Company points out, the reality of the Whistler real estate market is not nearly as drastic as it seems or is sometimes presented. After the $7.9 million purchase price of Akasha the next most expensive home to sell last year went for $4.8 million. All and all there have been only 15 home sales above $2 million in the last two years.

"There is a perception out there that a lot of homes are selling for $4, $6 or $8 million, frankly that’s not happening," Kelly says. He also asks: "Why don’t we want them?" After all, isn’t this the type of success the community mapped out for itself 20 years ago? Kelly points out that the owners of these homes can pay upwards of $14,000 a year in property taxes and are important contributors to the tax base, without asking for much in return.

"It’s odd that Whistler won’t let you build and that they restrict these people from coming here," Kelly says. He believes the market for estate homes is deeper than was first thought, but that Whistler is failing to provide the product.

Rick Reid is a realtor for Re/Max of Whistler. He has been here for the last seven years and has the listing for the Château du Lac. Reid admits that he wouldn’t be able to afford Whistler at today’s prices. He also says, "We haven’t seen the end of it." Still, he believes that monster homes will be a small minority of homes in Whistler for a long time to come.

However, some people are worried older homes in established neighbourhoods, many of which provide rental housing for employees, will be torn down and replaced by upscale homes without rental suites.

Asked if he doesn’t think it’s a mistake to see some of the more affordable housing stock pulled down to make way for larger houses, Reid says: "No one’s telling anyone to sell."

One very vocal opponent of these monster homes has been council member Ken Melemad, a resident of Whistler for 25 years and now in his second term on council. While he is not intrinsically opposed to large houses, Melamed feels they are inappropriate for Whistler; they are contributing to the gentrification of the town, or as he likes to call it, "the Aspenization."

"Here we still have 80 per cent of the work force living in the valley; in Aspen it’s 20 per cent. If we continue to follow the trend of Aspen and Vail then Whistler will become a stale lifeless town," Melamed says.

The trend toward large homes began a decade ago when the council of the day allowed Intrawest to create Horstman Estates, where homes of up to 7,000 square feet have been permitted. So why should other builders be prohibited from following in Intrawest’s footsteps?

It is Melamed’s opinion that Whistler council made a mistake in amending the bylaw in the early ’90s to allow the construction of houses over 3,500 square feet. He points out that now council doesn’t get applications for any thing other than spec. homes of 3,500-5,000 square feet.

"I’m not trying to exclude people with money or asking them not to move here, just that they live more modestly," he says.

His greatest concern is to preserve the relative diversity of Whistler, and see it remain open to people of all walks of life, not just a privileged elite. He also has environmental concerns about houses over a certain size. He points out that as houses grow in size their environmental footprint is disproportionately larger.

"It’s an American attitude, that you should be allowed to build what you want on your own property. But we’re not Americans, and I think as Canadians we recognize that there is a greater common good to be served in maintaining the integrity and diversity of the population."

The debate over steroid homes, trophy homes, monster homes, estate homes – whatever you want to call them – will not be resolved anytime soon. Some see their construction as a sign that Whistler has arrived, while others see it as a sign that the Whistler they have known will soon be gone.



Comments