Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Open house draws community to comment on future

Three days left for input on Whistler’s future Some had their minds made up before they came, others were swayed by the information before them and the rest were simply overwhelmed with all the possibilities that lie ahead.

Three days left for input on Whistler’s future

Some had their minds made up before they came, others were swayed by the information before them and the rest were simply overwhelmed with all the possibilities that lie ahead.

But one thing was for certain: everyone at Myrtle Philip Community Centre was talking about Whistler’s future at Saturday’s four-hour open house, whether they all agreed with each other or not.

"I think it’s great that they’re having this open house... to explain all the subtleties that don’t come to the forefront in the workbook," said Anne Strickland, who spends six months of the year at her home in Whistler.

All Whistler residents have been invited to take part in a process called Whistler. It’s Our Future , a planning exercise to determine Whistler’s path for development over the next 20 years.

In a short workbook and questionnaire the community must choose from five possible future scenarios or bring elements from the scenarios to create a brand new blended scenario. Ultimately the process will create the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan, which will guide development in the valley for the next 20 years.

The five futures were on the school walls in graphic detail at the open house, where 250 community members dropped by to learn about the future possibilities.

"I walked away with so much more knowledge," said Cathy Jewett, adding that municipal staff was great with providing explanations without offering their opinions.

Each scenario paints a picture of Whistler in the year 2020.

Some community members, like Lily Antunes, don’t want to see a Whistler that’s drastically different from the one that’s here today.

"We’re trying to raise a young family here and I like the community the way it is," she said.

She has been living here for 12 years and originally came to Whistler to get away from the city. Now her family may consider moving out of Whistler if there is an increase in development.

Though she wanted to get more informed at the open house, she was leaning to a future with little or no growth. That’s the future that’s described in Future 1, where the cap on development would stay at 55,500 bed units and Whistler would reach build out in 2005.

This future isn’t a preferred option for Mick Gannon, another local who has lived in Whistler for the past 17 years.

It is predicted under Future 1 that more than half of Whistler’s employees will be living out of the resort in neighbouring communities by 2020.

"With all this talk about sustainability, I think keeping people close to their workplace is important, rather than having them commute," he said, highlighting the increased greenhouse gas emissions that would come from the commuting cars.

This reason also steers Gannon away from a future where the Callaghan Valley would be developed for resident housing, as described in Future 3. Though the Callaghan is within municipal boundaries, located south of Function Junction, Gannon does not see it as a move to sustainability.

He leans toward Future 5, which would put resident housing within the community from Emerald Estates to Function Junction. This future would also allow more market housing above the current development cap, which would in turn help pay for the resident housing.

"I think in the real world, to provide all this affordable housing, the money has got to come from somewhere," said Gannon.

He’s not alone in wondering how the municipality will pay for its resident housing.

Mike Vance, general manager of community initiatives with the municipality, said one of the major themes at the open house was economics and financing the cost of resident housing.

Municipal figures show that the cheapest way to provide roughly 7,000 bed units of resident housing is through Future 5 at a cost of $22 million but that also means developing 750 more market bed units. The most expensive scenario is Future 3 in the Callaghan with an estimated cost of $46 million. Future 2 and Future 4 cost $43 and $38 million respectively.

These numbers only represent the costs to service the development. They do not include the costs of onsite roads and services or the actual cost to build the housing.

"The real power of these numbers is in their consistency in the way that I’ve approached them," said Joe Paul, manager of development services in the municipal engineering department.

"So the actual absolute values of the numbers is not as important as the magnitude of the differences."

Paul also pointed out that the $26 million Olympic contribution for an athlete’s village has not been incorporated in any scenario and can be applied to each one to offset the costs of development.

The municipality has also broken down the cost per bed unit in each development.

For example in Future 2, with its nodes of resident housing within the existing community, each node has a cost associated with its development.

Alpine North would cost $3,400 per bed unit to develop whereas the nearby Emerald West site would cost $8,500 per bed unit. The Emerald site is very rocky with a long winding road, which drives up the costs, explained Paul.

Future 3 in the Callaghan would cost $5,700 per bed unit.

And the Lower Cheakamus development in Future 2 and 5 would cost $5,300 and $5,500 respectively.

Paul admits there’s a lot of information buried behind these high level numbers but they do serve the purpose of comparison.

The economics of development are playing a part in people’s choices for the future.

Before the open house Strickland favoured Future 2. Afterwards she was leaning towards Future 5, seeing the increased market housing as a trade off to pay for the resident housing.

The open house also reinforced her views about the Callaghan Valley.

"It confirms to me that I didn’t really want to see the Callaghan developed," she said.

Others see development in the Callaghan as their preferred future, but some – like local businessman Tyler Mosher – see that development in the distant future.

The municipality does not have jurisdiction over the bulk of the Callaghan Valley with only a portion of it within the municipal boundaries, he said.

Whistler should concentrate on lobbying the provincial government for jurisdiction of the entire area before it thinks about developing a portion of the Callaghan.

"I’m saying 20 years down the road maybe it’ll be a lot more realistic (to develop the Callaghan)," he said.

In the meantime Mosher leans to a Future 5 where market housing can shoulder some of the costs of resident housing within the community. But he doesn’t think the community should be limited to the choices of where that resident housing should go as outlined in the Future 5 scenario.

He said there may be other nodes of development, which could be included in that scenario.

The input collected from the community over the past three weeks will be used to create a preferred scenario, which will then be presented to the community for additional comments. This stage should be complete by February 2004.

"I think it’s great but at the end of the day I’d be interested to see how much weight they give to the community feeling," said Gannon.

All questionnaires must be handed in to the municipality by Monday Nov. 24. Visit www.whistlerfuture.com or pick up paper versions of the workbook at the Whistler Public Library, the Meadow Park Sports Centre, all the schools and municipal hall.