Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Seeing the village for the trees

The case for preserving a tiny bit of nature in Whistler Village

 

By Stephen Vogler

One of my favourite areas in the village is the little corridor of forest that follows the waterway from Main Street toward the Story Teller’s Chair at the west end of Village Creek Park. The waterway — which cost a controversial $2 million-plus — is a nice feature, but it’s not what was added that makes this area special: it’s what was left. One can dip off of Main Street and instantly step into the middle of a shady alluvial forest, small and second growth though it is, the huge stumps with their springboard notches tell a forgotten chapter of the valley’s history. Such a corridor puts one in touch with the natural geography of our Coast Mountain habitat without ever leaving the village.

To have elements of our surrounding forest incorporated into the town centre is a rare treat. The only other parcel of forested land within the village is Lots 1 & 9 between the post office, the Olympic trailer and the Brewhouse. Lot 1/9’s fate is now up for consideration as our decision makers determine whether it should house a Paralympic sledge hockey arena, an arts or other kind of community facility, or simply be left intact for the future — a parcel of forest in the village bank, so to speak.

Martin Pardoe is a planner with the RMOW who is looking at possible uses for Lot 1/9. “Historically, that site was identified for an ice-based entertainment centre with a public market component,” Pardoe says. “Then when we were making a bid for the Olympics in 2002-2003, it was identified for a Paralympic arena. The cost to develop a suitable facility was quite expensive so we turned to pricing other sized rinks and looking at other locations.”

Besides Lot 1/9, staff are currently looking at Meadow Park as well as the athletes village near Function Junction. Senior level negotiations are ongoing, Pardoe says, which will result in a decision on the Paralympic arena by mid July.

Maintaining the forest, as was done in Village Creek Park, is not a likely scenario if the sledge hockey arena were to go on Lot 1/9. “On that site, it would be difficult to tuck an arena into the forest,” Pardoe says. He cites water qualities of the land and blowdown of newly exposed trees as some of the difficulties in trying to retain forest around a large building. “Ultimately it has to be safe,” he says. “As soon as you put services in for buildings, you’re digging up ground and roots.”

• • •

Just how important natural and forested areas are to our village is a topic well worth debating while the fate of Lot 1/9 rests in the hands of upper level negotiators. In a recent cover story in Vancouver Review, John Moore wrote: “Whistler’s instant alpine village looked more like something pre-fabbed by schnapps-maddened elves in the Ikea Hall of the Mountain King, flat shipped for assembly, marked one clock tower, ten rustic inns, one dozen quaint shops.” Moore isn’t the first to criticize the village for its pre-packaged, shopping mall ambiance, though it might be noted that his story just won a Western Canada Magazine award for best article. While Tourism Whistler markets the resort as “Always Real” the impression the village leaves on tourists and locals may be something quite different.

Shopping malls are designed to move people through, to have them make purchases, perhaps get lost, make some more purchases and then leave. The degree to which we can differentiate the Whistler Village experience from that of a shopping mall might have an important bearing on the future success of the resort. It’s no accident that Tourism Whistler is now using the “Always Real” marketing slogan; sometimes marketing is as much about damage control as it is about promotion.

There are, of course, many positive attributes to the village as well: the views of the surrounding mountains, the patio life and the ability to walk in the fresh air unencumbered by cars. What I find lacking on a stroll through the village, however, is the ability to linger in non-commercial areas. Admittedly, the Village Square has improved in this regard with its recent redesign — there are more benches and a more open and inviting atmosphere. Through most of the village, however, the gardens and green spaces are for looking at, but not for being in. Even the Village Creek Park, for all its peaceful forest, has few places to sit and read a book, spend time with one’s lover or simply watch the world go by. These are the elements that make a place liveable, and would take little more expense than creating pedestrian access to, and building benches in, many of the gardens and green spaces throughout the village.

The underground element seems to intuitively understand that small forests and green spaces are for hanging out in. Step into the forest of Lot 1/9 or the grove of trees between the taxi loop and the bus station and you’ll see evidence of human life. The activities that occur in there may be illicit, but what does it matter? People have discovered the beauty and protection of the place and are making use of it. Planners might do well to take note.

• • •

Maintaining forested lands in the original village wasn’t an option since the area was already clear of trees in its previous incarnation as a garbage dump. The same can’t be said of the northern village. Apart from the old Myrtle Philip School site, most of it was alluvial forest when construction began. The feeling one gets of connecting with that forest in Village Creek Park was in fact no accident. Martin Pardoe says the use for that land was identified by village designer Eldon Beck. “(His) idea was for fingers of natural forest that would reach down off the mountain and into the village. The intent was to try to make the village feel a part of the natural environment,” Pardoe says. Village Creek park, despite the original controversy over the high cost of the waterway, has proved to be a great success in this regard. And when the new library is built, the park will likely become an even more prominent and well used part of the village. But is one finger of natural environment enough to give the entire village a feeling of connection with its mountain surroundings?

The Arts Council building beside Village Creek Park is about to be moved next to the forest just north of Lot 1/9. Arts Council Executive Director Doti Niedermayer says she appreciates the quiet which the forested area brings to the village.

“I’d rather not have any more trees cut and make use of the already cleared areas we have,” she says. “But if they created something so people walked in there and used the forest — something creative and useable…”

There may, of course, be as many creative and useable ideas for that space as there are people in the community. Anyone with children can tell you that apart from the play structure next to Lot 1/9, the village lacks any play areas for kids. An extension of that playground, with trails into the forest, would be a great benefit to local and visiting families.

As a proponent of the arts, Niedermayer points to the need for a public art gallery, a museum and studio space. “Anything for exhibition has to be in the village,” she says, “because if it’s in Function it won’t work; unless there’s a concentration of stuff going on, like at Granville Island.”

The former WAG property across Blackcomb Way from Millennium Place has been flagged for an arts use and to act as an extension to Village Creek Park. One of the ideas being considered is an outdoor amphitheatre. Backing on the cleared parking lots, this area would seem a more likely choice for larger structures, while Lot 1/9 would be more suited to smaller, less obtrusive development. The idea of Eldon Beck’s fingers of natural forest in the village is not only to maintain some natural environment, but to bring the people into those spaces. The question is, can we afford to develop forested sites in a way that brings human activity into them without destroying them?

• • •

Mayor Hugh O’Reilly describes the last parcel of forested land in the village as “a very valuable site. I’m glad we own it. Eldon Beck will tell you it’s an anchor site. As long as it’s sitting there whole, it can be used for anything. It will come out of the CSP (Community Sustainability Plan) for our vision of success. We have to consider what will provide the highest value and best use for the community on a long term basis.”

That’s a question worth pondering, though one that will be a moot point if the decision to build the Paralymic arena falls to Lot 1/9 next week. Mayor O’Reilly, however, says that the mid-July deadline is only a targeted date. “I don’t know if staff will be able to come up with a decision by then.”

While that decision percolates through the staff offices and council chambers at municipal hall, it may be time for the community to have its own discussion of the best use for Lot 1/9. In the most recent version of the CSP: Whistler 2020: Moving Toward a Sustainable Future , two of the five overall priorities are “Enhancing the resort experience” and “Protecting the environment.” “Ensuring economic viability” is also included. The Arts, Culture and Heritage Strategy, one of 16 strategies in the CSP document, states under its descriptions of success: “Arts, cultural and heritage opportunities attract visitors and contribute to the experience and local economy.” The Natural Areas Strategy suggests that “Community members and visitors act as stewards of the natural environment,” and “Use of critical natural areas is avoided and use of surrounding areas is limited to ensure ecosystem integrity.” There is no shortage of well-intended goals and descriptions of success in the award-winning document. But are we as a community ready to follow through on them?

The real question in regard to the village is, perhaps, whether we’ve matured enough to consider long-term aesthetic values over short term commercial ones. Undoubtedly, it costs more to tuck one or two small buildings into a parcel of forest, to connect them with forest trails and a children’s playground and to designate them not as commercial space, but as community and resort cultural facilities. Mayor O’Reilly cautions, however, that we have to consider the highest value use of the property in a time when the resort is running at under 50 per cent occupancy. Those dismal occupancy figures may have more to do with over-development in the last 15 years than with mismanagement of the resort. We also might consider whether commercial interests always lead to greater commercial success for the resort as a whole.

It may be time to take a leap forward toward aesthetic and cultural values in this town. To show, with the last forested land in the village, that we’ve learned to incorporate nature into our existence in this valley. It might go a long way in remedying past mistakes in village construction and showing that we can walk the walk of our grand vision statements. Such an approach might also prove to be the most financially viable in the long term. Do we want the village to be known as an outdoor shopping mall, an eye-sore plunked in the middle of a west coast valley by schnapps-maddened elves, or as the heart of a thriving resort with a culture that connects it to its natural environment? It’s something to ponder while strolling through Village Creek Park or exploring the forest of Lot 1/9.



Comments