Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 53 of total 53 in this topic |
Squamish Climber
Trad climber
Shangri-La
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jun 29, 2011 - 05:28pm PT
|
We've been here before but the new proponents say this time around it will be different. Instead of topping out on the second summit of the Chief, this gondola would head up the ridge towards Mt. Habrich (a short steep valley over) and end 200 meters above the Chief. The gondola would still pass through Stawamus Chief Provincial Park, who has not squashed the idea so far...
The debate has already started on squamishclimbing.com
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2011 - 05:30pm PT
|
Where would the ski runs be?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2011 - 06:27pm PT
|
The last such proposal was in 2004, by developers wanting to build a gondola from a base in the gravel pit just SW of the campground, up and over the east side of the south summit, to a terminal at the middle summit. It would have had high impacts on the natural values of the park, and on the public, climbers and hikers, and seemed poorly planned. The successful opposition was led by the Climbers' Access Society of B.C. The provincial government overrode the process required by the Park Act for such things, and said that before it could be seriously considered, it had to be approved by the municipal government, the Squamish Nation, climbers, and the Olympics people. It got little support from the Squamish climbing community - a much broader group than just climbers living in Squamish - and was eventually also rejected by the First Nation and the District. (A legal challenge was also a possibility, but wasn't pursued.)
After the proposal was defeated, the Access Society worked with partners to get the gravel pit "base" area taken off the market, through a deal involving MEC and the Land Conservancy of B.C. If no base area was available, future projects would be stillborn. The property was purchased, but I believe put back on the market last autumn and sold, perhaps subject to covenants as to use.
More information is needed about this new proposal. However, it appears likely it will have substantial impacts on the park in the base area, and the lower part - essentially quite close to the campground, trail and Bulletheads. Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls parks are contiguous there, and although the top and bottom of the gondola may be outside the parks, the rest probably isn't. Its overall impact on the Chief may be less than the 2003 proposal, although visual and environmental impacts on the area generally need to be assessed. Likewise if there's demand for such a project, what would happen if it was built and failed (or succeeded and wanted to grow), and whether there are alternative locations with less impacts. Judging from the photo, this time there may be water available to the top area - the usual restaurant and tourist shops, presumably. Likewise, they might build a road to the top, off the Shannon Creek road, which might reopen access to Habrich etc.
Here we go again, maybe. In 2004 the Access Society had some buttons made, and suggested they be kept for future threats to the Chief. Looks like this may be one such.
|
|
the goat
climber
north central WA
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2011 - 07:58pm PT
|
What's the point? Is it merely to get non-hikers to a high point or do they (developers) have bigger plans beyond an observation deck? Seems waaaay too expensive.....
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2011 - 08:10pm PT
|
It seems likely that significant development would be needed at the base and summit, to generate enough traffic and income to pay for the thing. Restaurants, tourist shops, tours, and on and on - just like Yosemite!
Also, who knows if it would be economical to operate year round, bearing in mind the local climate? There's also competition - the tram on Grouse, and lifts at Whistler. Why would you stop at Squamish when you can continue to Whistler, and try the "big boy" gondolas, including the peak-peak, there? Plus tons of commercial stuff?
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2011 - 09:36pm PT
|
Looks like a good idea, better than the clear cuts in the photo. Those kinda render any discussion about environmental impact mute. Maybe extend the Howe Sound Crest trail all the way to Sky Pilot area too. Gives the locals more options for day trips
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 01:22am PT
|
Howe would this fit with current and proposed mountain biking trails?
|
|
NigelSSI
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 02:32am PT
|
Worst thing about climbing in Squamish is Squamish. Town, port, and highway right under your ass, but great rock above you. Gondola = more poop.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 03:19am PT
|
Tami - how do you think the local boz are going to get their pressure washers onto Habrich without gondola access - you know how much we like those freshly shaved granite cracks. Habrich is in dire need of a cleaning
A ton more cragging up there gets developed too because of this. There is no downside to this idea whatsoever, except for those whom like to force their version of ethic's and asthetics down others throats.
|
|
Pakdong
climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 03:24am PT
|
Where will they put the water slide?
|
|
Matt M
Trad climber
Alamo City
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 09:57am PT
|
While not a local I've enjoyed the climbing in Squamish many times in the past. The idea that Squamish is some sort of pristine wilderness always rings a bit hollow to be. I fully support preserving the park and natural habitat as much as possible but let's be honest here, Squamish is a large mix of outdoors and industrial in a small footprint. From nearly anywhere on the Chief you can spot the town, BC Hydro Power Lines, the paper mill etc etc. Not to mention the logging roads, dirt bikers etc etc. While we like to complain about "European" ideas of lift accessed wilderness and huts serving food in the "backcountry" the sheer AMOUNT of wilderness we have (particularly in the PNW) vastly outweighs developments that are really only found off the highway. I found in WA, that you merely needed to drive up a forest road for a few miles to loose most signs of "convenience".
In Europe, where you can take a day pack and a gondola and hike the Alps very easily, the amount of people enjoying it far surpasses anything I've seen in NA.
I'd be very interested to see what other recreational opportunities a project like this could open up. If you can increase the access to BC Skiing, Mtn Bike trails and hiking while simply adding a base station with some shops I can't see the impact as that severe. I mean, come on. There's a Gas Station, KFC and "Native Souvenir" shop right up the road from the base of the Apron.
The view coming into Squam isn't pristine from my recollection...
I'm not saying this won't be a major eye sore and bad idea but let's keep things in perspective as well.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 10:07am PT
|
Interesting debate. I don't know anything about the proposed gondola, and what might or might not be at its base or top, so I can't comment pro or con.
But what I find interesting is that many North Americans who enjoy a vacation in the Alps because they can ski up one valley and down the next via a highly developed lift system get really upset at the thought of any similar development in their own mountains.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 04:06pm PT
|
I'm not saying this won't be a major eye sore and bad idea but let's keep things in perspective as well.
Eyesore ?? You mean the power lines ? Shouldn't anyone who opposes the proposed tramlines also oppose power lines ? I challenge them to also cease and desist using electricity if they are serious about forming opposition to this project.
Hope you don't choke on your granola after you turn off your lights
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 08:21pm PT
|
A broadcast message from the Access Society:
A new proposal for a gondola in Squamish was announced yesterday. The proposed gondola would launch from the gravel pit nestled between the Chief and Shannon Provincial Parks, ascend through BC Parks, and top out at a forested shoulder west of Mt. Habrich. Information about the proposal is available at http://www.seatoskygondola.com/
Representatives from CASBC and Squamish Access Society (SAS) recently met with developer David Greenfield (GroundEffects Development Inc.; www.grndfx.ca) to learn more about the proposal. The developer is seeking support from the various interest groups (including CASBC) before deciding whether to move forward.
The gondola would have a number of implications for Squamish residents, the local economy, tourists, climbers, backcountry skiers and other interested groups. CASBC has yet to take a position on the proposal. The CASBC Board is interested in members' views. We are exploring the proposal thoroughly and will be meeting with the developer again in the coming weeks or months.
Thank you for your continued support!
Cheers,
Climbers' Access Society of BC
At the time of the 200r gondola proposal, something of this sort was suggested as at least a possible alternative, which ought to be considered. More information and discussion needed, but at least this wouldn't go to the top of the Chief, although it wouldn't be far off, and there would be significant impacts. Also, the proponents seem to have some sense of public relations - the 2004 proposal seemed rather inept. But good PR doesn't necessarily something should be done.
This is much more than a local issue, and so a bit of information and discussion here seems to make sense. If/when the time comes, there should be information as to who to write to with comments.
Otherwise, a Land Conservancy newsletter arrived today, again with nothing about the fate of the gravel pit lands, their sale, and if sold, what if any conditions might have been attached. I'm certain that the intent when it was purchased was to prevent inappropriate development. IIRC, MEC put $50,000 into the purchase, and the Access Society $5,000.
(There is information in the TLC newsletter, and perhaps its website, about a proposed purchase of a 50 hectare parcel of land at Sansum Point, "overlooking the swift currents of Sansum Narrows". I wonder if this affects or relates to access to the climbing there?)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2011 - 08:32pm PT
|
It seems unlikely to help, unless the operator allows base jumpers to jump from the towers - which ain't likely. There doesn't seem any cliff high and steep enough near the upper terminal of the proposed gondola for safe jumping.
People base jump from near the second summit of the Chief, more or less above the Prow Wall. I gather it's somewhat marginal, best done only in calm conditions - usually dawn or dusk. At least two jumpers have gotten hung up there over the last year or two. Here's a photo from the rescue of one, last year.
The jumper got caught in a tree that's out of the photo - handy things, sometimes - and has just been hoisted to the top, with the rescuer following.
This photo is from the first summit, showing the second summit, with Mount Garibaldi behind. The 2004 gondola proposal would have had an upper terminal at the second summit, with all the usual tourist stuff. So it might have been of some use to base jumpers - but climbers were universally opposed to it.
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
We need to get all the facts straight on this proposal before we get our self righteous knickers in a twist. It would appear that the proponents of the original idea have heeded the suggestion to redirect the gondola up into Shannon Creek. This would mean rebuilding the defunct logging roads that provide access to the Skypilot Range and be a boon to the outdoor recreation community and economy, climbers included. At first blush this project looks like a winner and I'm all for it. Looking forward to more details.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thanks, Perry - that seems to be pretty much the consensus at this point. That is, wait until more information is available, then analyze and discuss it. Not that we'll all agree on how to respond, and no doubt some have already made up their minds. Have you heard anything about the project or proponents that might be useful?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Ummm Hank? Jim's photos are of some jumps from the Chief. The proposed new gondola wouldn't be anywhere very near there.
|
|
Khoi
climber
Vancouver, BC
|
|
What Erik Frebold, a coworker of mine who has put up some routes in Squamish, has to say:
Goat ridge doesn't strike me as quite as obvious a launch point for hikes as they claim-- quite a bit of alder and bluffs to deal with first. Also it seems a shame to bisect the parkland with a gondola.
Also, their map doesn't actually show... the gondola going anywhere near Goat ridge, despite their claim, unless the two principals, who are both experienced real estate developers, also have something extra in mind for the Shannon Creek valley... road expansion, bridges, houses?
Finally, isn't there quite some new development of climbs going on right now on the bluff they claim has "no known climbing activity"? Quite a breathless document, all in all. 60-80 person-years of construction work eh?
New climbing access to Habrich environs? I don't see climbers rushing to pay $25 for the Grouse gondola to get up the Widowmaker Arete.See More
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
They are building a gondola, how is that going to be appealing to the grouse grind crowd?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
So Bruce, was the casino bar better or worse than the Ivanhoe?
An article about the gondola proposal from the Squamish Chief - the local paper, that is.
http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20110701/SQUAMISH0101/306299982/-1/squamish/-8216-sea-to-sky-gondola-8217-concept-launched
They still won't give up that hoary old nonsense about the Chief being "the world’s second largest granite monolith". It's tiresome, almost reedonkulous. The chamber of commerce or tourism bureau or something seems to have come up with the absurd claim decades ago, and continue to embarrass themselves by repeating it.
The article also refers to "the Squamish Access Society (SAS), the climbing group that voiced strong opposition to the 2004 proposal" - except that the "Squamish Access Society", a local group, didn't exist then, or for a year or two after. The opposition was led by the Climbers' Access Society of B.C., aka the Access Society.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
What about the chief trail appeals to the grinders:
Ease of use, you park you hike you drive home. Its steep, to the point and then its over.
You can get in a quick "organic" work out and still sip lattes in downtown Vancouver in the afternoon.
These folks are not after trails, they want a workout and they want to pair it with a yoga session afterwards.
Do you see thousands of people taking the 45$ skyride to hike Crown or Goat, no its too much time out of the day and those routes dont offer the steep stair master type hikes these folks want.
Go hike the BCMC, its dead and right next door the grind is packed like a conga line.
No the gondola is for the folks who want to ride up in their loafers, check out the wildlife sanctuary, have a coffee and a bite and continue on to Whistler. I highly doubt there will be any removal of the chief trail participants to this Gondola ride.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There aren't enough facts yet about the proposal to do much more than hypothesize - a perfect situation for SuperTopo. The questions being:
1. What the proponents say they want to do, now and for the foreseeable future.
2. What they would actually do, if allowed to go ahead, and if there are any hidden agendas.
3. Whether they'd change their minds part way in, and whether they have the needed financing.
4. What real accountability there would be.
5. The process to properly examine the proposal - Bruce will have to check the area for those endangered slugs he likes so much, and that could take years.
Some examples:
 Would they use/restore the Shannon Creek road for construction of and access to the upper terminal?
What access would the public have to upper Shannon Creek, at least once construction is finished?
What activities would take place in that area? Would it just be a restaurant, souvenir shop and nearby things like nature walks, or perhaps a network of hiking and mountain bike trails?
Will they close for October - March, given that the upper terminal is roughly at the usual snowline? Skiing, hiking and mountain biking aren't likely winter activities, and the usual view would be the inside of a cloud. You'd need a fair bit of traffic to justify staying open in the winter, especially with competition from Grouse and Whistler. (There may be possibilities for cross country skiing, or access to some backcountry skiing higher in the valley, but neither seems likely to be a big draw.)
What about impacts on the parks? If nothing else, construction, the swathe that would be cut from bottom to top, and visual and noise impacts?
Who will clean up the mess if the thing fails?
What process will be used to examine and decide on the proposal, under the Park Act and the master plans? Last time the government tried to bypass the Act, perhaps illegally.
What resources will BC Parks be given to examine the proposal, oversee construction and operation if it goes ahead, and manage increased use of the parks?
What alternative locations are there?
Whether it would be possible, or wise, to build trails from the base to the top is an interesting question. Perhaps by going around the far south end of Shannon Creek Wall, or by going part way up the Chief trail (more traffic!), then across Olesen Creek and somewhere up by the 1992 clearcut. But there's a lot of steep terrain. Whether such trails might help slake demand for hiking in the area is another matter.
BC Parks did some good and much-needed work on the Chief trails in autumn 2010, and plan to do more this year. I still hope that they can eventually build a trail up to the saddle between the Chief and Slhanay, more or less using the old mountaineers' route. With parking at the gravel pit, so allowing better access to the centre of the park, and a loop trip. (A path through the forest, paralleling the highway and Stawamus River road, would also help.)
At any rate, these are questions that will take facts, discussion and perspective. Not a simple matter, and it's going to take time. We have a provincial government and new premier itching to call an early election this fall, which may also be a factor.
Disclosure: I have no family, personal or business connnection with the proponents, and neither I nor anyone close to me has any expectation of benefiting from the proposal.
|
|
Khoi
climber
Vancouver, BC
|
|
Flocks of asians fresh off the plane from china
None from Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam or the Philippines, Bruce?
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
BK if you were to take your kids on the Skyride today it would cost you 150$ plus parking plus food.
How does that appeal to the folks you saw on the chief trail, what is it about the gondola that will attract those folks?
At best a grind esque trail from the base to the tram top?
And if this is all Squamish needs to attract folks and reduce the numbers on the backside then what they should do is chase mighty hiker out of town and build some new trails and include some via feratta.
Then you can actually start getting people out and off the idiot box and actually spending loot in Squamish.
If MH is around then at best we may get a permit to cut some grass but even still that would be after decades of studies ;)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Don't assume that I'm in favour of or opposed to the proposal. Yes, I believe that the default setting for the argument should be no developments of this kind in provincial parks, and that anything that is proposed should be thoroughly scrutinized and discussed before any decision. (I'm well aware that there are others who see parks as a land reserve for 'recreational' development, based on the appalling precedent of major encroachment on Garibaldi Park for downhill skiing.) But there's not enough information about the current proposal, its proponents, and their bona fides to comment yet.
As Bruce observes, the main apparent direct impact on the Chief and Shannon Falls, apart from clearing the tramway, may be the base area.
My support for rebuilding the existing trails in the park, and indeed for expanding them, and my work on careful restoration of existing routes, shows that I'm comfortable with appropriate uses and activities in parks.
The last few years, maybe inspired by the FaceLift, I've spent a fair amount of time on the backside trails at the Chief, doing cleanup, trail work, and graffiti removal. Quite a lot, overall. One of the nice side benefits is all the people you get to meet, as regular pauses are needed to do whatever needs doing. It's a veritable United Nations, and that's good to see, even if some are more acculturated to hiking than others.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
I fail to see (so far) how how bad it can be to transport people up into an old cut block where currently no one goes or has an interest in and where I assume the ecological impact will be reasonable, where the visual aesthetics will also be minimal, and where the local economic spin offs could be quite substantial for a town that is perpetually complaining about being the poor kid sitting between rich cousins. I realize my assumptions need to be substantiated but so far I see no big red flags.
Agreed this doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand. Trails up top and winter access a good idea. I paid 80 bucks for an annual grouse mtn skyride pass this year. BCMC trail was dead quiet while continous stream of folks on grind was sniffing each others ass today. put in a couple via ferrata too and bobs your uncle
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce M practices trolling. Or maybe his former residence in Whistler corrupted him?
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
All I was getting at was that the crowd you wrestled with on the backside is not the same crew heading up the gondola. I dont believe a gondola to nowhere will capture much, if any of this outdoor boot camp gym crowd coming from Vancity.
In my view the crew that wants to ride gondolas is already well serviced in two world class cities on either side.
good luck getting the backside crew off farmed salmon....its more expensive for a reason...hello its organic!!
Its right beside the organic shrimp in safeway!
|
|
Khoi
climber
Vancouver, BC
|
|
khoi, i can see how my quip may be seen as being a bit flipant or disparaging, if thats what you driving at. point taken. for all i know they were all 5th generation Canadian. sorry about that - i didn't mean it that way.
I'm glad you see that, and are big enough to apologize.
Back on topic, I also agree that this proposal, if all the announced plans come to pass, won't make a noticeable dent in the proto-Grouse-Grind-esque traffic scene that the backside trail is getting.
A huge proportion of said traffic isn't there just to be at the top. Hell! A lot of them barely spend any time at the time. It just seems like they are there to do a hike, and be able to tell their friends that they've done that hike, and possibly make them think that they've are a part of the "outdoorsy culture" of the West Coast. I don't think they'd be interested in paying $$ to be taken via gondola to the top. It's not something they can really brag to their friends about. It's not something that significantly adds to their possible self-image of being a West Coast girl/guy.
While this proposal, which I am still highly skeptical, suspicious, and cynical about, may have benefits outside of the develops' and investors' bank accounts, I don't believe that easing up of traffic on the backside trail will be one of them.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I suspect there could be three or four trails similar to the Chief hike, in the Squamish area, and demand would still be high.
One thing - this is a public forum, as is Squamish Climbing, and it is very likely that the gondola proponents (at least) are watching the discussion here, and may adjust their tactics accordingly.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
So we are in agreement on the premise that if the gondola proposal is engineered with a trail system up to the top station aka grouse grind thereby alleviating traffic pressures on the backside trail, then the proposal is highly desirable
Clearly its the needs of the lululemon crowd intent on a workout up and a lunch ontop followed by a safe and low impact descent should be their target market as this model is proven wildly succesful on Grouse.
If the developers adopt the "godola ride down" model then they have a winner - in terms of proposal acceptance**
The via ferratas go in under the tramline on those broken cliff bands which are not really good for much else. The new grind trail goes in between Shannon falls and the tramline
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, no one seems to be biting. Try some other bait.
As for the "access for the disabled" argument, there are lifts to the tops of Mount Seymour, Grouse Mountain, and Mounts Strachan and Black Mountain on the north shore. Grouse, at least, is fully accessible. Likewise, gondolas to the tops of Whistler and Blackcomb, 45 minutes north, with a far better view and facilities. There are opportunities already. Developers build these things to make money, not as a public service. They'll bring in any argument they can find to try to find support or justify what they're doing, but money is the bottom line. Not the public interest.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Astutely stated gf though the viability of the business isn't our concern -- But the impact of the development is very much our concern.
Build the project around a fitness centric model as I have proposed and we get the desired impact.
If the initial investors want to lose their shirts that's fine with me, I'll come in for bankrupcty sale @10 cents on the dollar to pick up the azssets and operate it myself from there.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
"selling the hype" is often all there is to the meat of some of these business schemes - the advocates of the gondola proposal may just be looking to put approvals in place then flog the permits to someone else if they can. Isn't there someone offshore who needs a money laundering store front in Canada ?
Remember the floating hotel scheme sold to investors in Britannia Beach ? Didn't that ship get sold for scrap in the end ?
How many times has Grouse mountain gone bankrupt in the past ? How many times has Whistler Blackcomb been resold ?
Good point gf
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Then there's the interesting question as to what the First People of Squamish thinks of the proposal. Perhaps they have some direct involvement, as investor or partner. (Maybe a few would prefer it go from the casino to the second summit...) If they're not directly involved, what part will they have in the review and approval process? They were adamantly opposed to the 2004 proposal, given what I understand to be the importance of the Chief in their culture. Shannon Falls is also quite important to them, and the proposal wouldn't do much for its appearance, although riders would get a good view of the falls.
And yes, before anything else, the economics and business plan have to be thoroughly examined, to see if it's viable. The ski areas and tourist gondolas in B.C. generally make little if any money on lift operations. For most, real estate development is key, followed by as many tourist facilities as can be fitted in, operated to as high capacity year round as is possible.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Whistler/blackcomb ski and bike operations profit margin is huge - they actually don't need real estate to profit at all. They used to subsidize other Intrawest operations all the time. Is that including both capital and operating costs? Lift operations and related things might well generate income in comparison with expenses, but not when capital costs are factored in. It costs a lot of money to build a ski area and infrastructure. The overall marginal finances of Whistler/Blackcomb speak for themselves, as it was sold again about a year, after some sort of semi-receivership. As it's one of the top ski resorts in North America, not good.
The proposed gondola would have to go considerably higher to have reliable snow. The current upper terminal is about 800 m, which isn't far above the usual snowline in Squamish. The difficulty being that you could move it higher, say to 1,200 m or more, but then might forego an upper station with a good view. Also, Vancouver already has three (or more) marginal ski areas - does it need a fourth?
Then there's climate change to consider, and shifting demographics.
I do find it surprising that Squamish doesn't do a better job of building on what it already has - fantastic climbing, hiking, camping, mountaineering, backcountry skiing, wind surfing, and mountain biking, plus all the regular outdoor activities. It may not be as dramatic and sexy as a gondola, but the overall contribution is enormous. I've seen climbing at Squamish grow from a few people around on sunny weekends to what it is now. Instead of imitating Whistler, and sacrificing what it has, why not build on it?
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
After 40 years of climbing at Squamish it has become obvious to me that climbers contribute very little to the economic drivers of the community. Yes, I concede that numerous studies have arrived at figures from 1 to 1.5 million per year of economic stimulus, but these are based on middle class, per day hotel spending not dirt bagging beside the Stawamas river. You can confirm this with the local economic development officers, I am not making this sh#t up!
The Squamish city infrastructure and the Provincial Parks funding is based on taxation and spending, something which our lifestyle has worked hard to avoid.
We enjoy the privilege of driving on a new highway, using community facilities, all at our miserly contribution of the price of our morning Starbucks latte and to piss in some one else’s toilet!
Squamish like a lot of small communities have lost the large resource based employers and is struggling to develop some kind of local economic stimulus. It is rapidly becoming or perceived to be an elitist outdoor NIMBY community. We “develop” our recreational activity of choice through miles of trail networks, hobbit warrens through boulders, deforestation and the addition of permanent fixtures, then say we perceive any other form of development as undesirable! I acknowledge and recognize myself as part of this community but also recognize that a sustainable local based economy needs real jobs and investment.
Before we (the outdoor community) dictate, mandate, poll our peers and become outraged on what direction our private play ground is headed towards, perhaps we should listen to some of the local mom and pop businesses. Let’s recognize how little we contribute to the local economy; a few new climbing shoes, some groceries and coffee don’t make a significant contribution to local economy.
Squamish will either stay a bedroom community of Vancouver with limited job growth and increasing local taxation or encourage and entertain new business ideas which will help pay for the infrastructure and access to the outdoors we take for granted.
One of the posts on another forum justified their anti development arguments on the bases of self-propelled outdoor access as opposed to Gondola access. “ We earn our turns”, well it’s about time we earned our turns with the local economy as well!
I agree we should be skeptical of the promises the developer makes, but we also need to be open to the opportunities they may bring. If we examined, critiqued and held climbing up to the same standards we do the Gondola proposal, I doubt we would have the free unrestricted access we enjoy today.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Where are the would-be developers based? Any Squamish connections? How about the financing?
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
So what if they fail ? Someone else buys it at their loss. Metal prices don't warrant leaving much behind these days and a few concrete piers are nothing relative to the clearcut they are in. Bigger problem is too successful and not enough parking at the base.
Good time to get financing in place for long term.
You have to be pretty narrow minded to object to this. Of course that would describe a lot of climbers I used to know.
2500 elevation gain is just about right for a workout. Two or three laps if you are super motivated. One is enough for the average person. Yoga classes, showers and change rooms on top. Maybe a bunch of campsites too, since there aren't many places to camp anymore when its busy.
Surveillance cameras and security patrol for the parking lot at night. Someone is getting away with a lot of break-ins and its time to shut that bastard down.
Whatever they do don't propose a ski area ....
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
A lot of passionate opinion and reaction here, some of it ill informed and presumptuous. I like Rolf's thoughts and am hypersensitive to climbers waxing possessive of something that they don't own or contribute to and indulging in holier than thou, hypocritical pontification. Makes me want to barf.
The Shannon Creek basin was ravaged by my fellow loggers years ago and ain't no frikkin wilderness. The First Nations hold no lofty moral ground here and would murder the last otter and fall the last old Sitka if either were still here for the taking. BC Parks is a hollow husk of an institution and in dire need of a rethink and revitalization.
Real estate developers and local municipal "planners" are converting Squamish into a town full of condo dwelling commuters clogging the Sea to Sky Hwy with single occupant vehicles and doing all their shopping in Vancouver. No "Smart Growth On The Ground" here, no sustainability and rather, a community increasingly vulnerable to isolation from routine, minor geological events.
The proponents have clearly indicated that the proposal is in a preliminary conceptual phase and that they are attempting to consult with all affected parties. No done deal here.
How about this for a novel concept.
Maybe the proponents are committed do doing it right.
Maybe it's an imperfect but good idea that will contribute to quality local recreation and a more sustainable local economy.
Anybody have a better idea?
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
gf,
I agree and am suggesting assiduous review as the process unfolds rather than ill informed speculation and negative prognostication before all the facts are in.
pb
|
|
Chief
climber
The NW edge of The Hudson Bay
|
|
gf,
Good points, the math has to work and bear scrutiny.
Maybe the proponents are extrapolating from the 1400 people a who hike the backside of the Chief on a nice day. Way less work riding a gondola for a similar or better view.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Greg and Perry seem to be discussing different parts of the same elephant. My biggest concern is that the proposal would be marginally financed, based on overly optmistic projections, and leave a big mess. Sorry, Bruce - that's what it would be. There's also the big question, THE FUTURE OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT IN SQUAMISH. (Every few years some mega-project or other is proposed, supposedly in answer. If only the world was so simple.) But then there's the questions as to what if any development should occur in the Klahanie lands, below Shannon Falls, and now also the gravel pit at the base, and upper Shannon Creek. It may be better from the outset if the developers acknowledge that given the constraints, they need every facility and activity they can fit in, to make the thing pay, and that it all needs to be synergistic with the parks.
Real estate development in upper Shannon Creek seems improbable - no road access. A honeymoon hotel and conference centre may work. Restaurant, hiking trails, mountain bike trails, cross country skiing - all likely to generate traffic. Still key to generate traffic during the week, and from October - April. A huge unknown. Real estate development at the base might not generate much traffic/business, unless it was hotel and tourism oriented. Again, running into the seasonal problem.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Sorry, maybe I could be clearer. Simply observing that the gondola proposal needs to be seen and assessed in context - it's not an isolated thing. And given the changes in Squamish over the last 30+ years, there are many things to consider. Both the project in isolation - that is, examined carefully, does it make economic and other sense - and in context of the parks, the Squamish area, and so on. Greg's angle seems more the immediate economics and practicalities of the proposal, Perry's the larger picture.
Another perspective might be that there is limited land in the area for developments of this kind, almost always depending on both private and provincial land. An overall plan for the provincial land - most of the land outside the valley - seems wise, rather than a piecemeal approach.
There's no turning back the clock. The primary industries that were long a bedrock for Squamish's economy, such as logging, the mills, the railway, and the port, have been declining in absolute and relative importance for decades. That's not likely to change. At the same time, Squamish has increasingly become a commuter suburb for Vancouver and to some extent Whistler, and a service base for Whistler. Primarily a residential and service economy. There is some manufacturing and industry, but whether it can grow is unknown. The new university may take some time to find its feet. Still, outdoor recreation has become much more important. I agree with Rolf - its economic contribution is often exaggerated. Still, quite a lot of people have moved to Squamish in good part for recreation, including climbing - Perry was one of the first. The recreation may grow in small increments, but is a big part of the community's culture, and has significant economic benefits. And we need to get past the mindset that "only primary industries and manufacturing count".
We can never solve Squamish being half way from Vancouver to Whistler - that's geography. But the perennial "big project X will save Squamish" and "let's do what they did at Whistler" mentality isn't the way to go. Squamish has a long, proud history and culture, and should keep that in mind.
My overall take is that if the project was to go ahead, it needs to fit within Squamish's larger goals, and needs to be well-financed. That is, do a really good job of it, not just an adequate one. The thing could be an anchor for other things, in the good or bad sense. If it flops, it's a rather large and visible negative advertisement for the area.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
up top:
campground, showers, cafeteria, washroom, hang glider launch, parapont launch, trail systems, large telescope, SAR station, concessions, nature tours, mountain biking rentals, restaurant, office for Squamish Guides, guided climbs of nearby peaks, designated alpine camping areas, cross country ski trails, ice climbing, snow shoeing, snow shoe rentals, zip lines
gondola base:
parking, security for parking, trail heads for grind trails to Gondola upper station, via ferrata route to upper station. No other development competing with existing businesses already established in Squamish. Rescue insurance vending machine.
Good grief Charlie Brown aka Anders … how about toning down the negative assumptions for a change ?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Sheesh! Now I have to take the other foot out of my gondola. Perhaps not my day for diplomatic language. Though I was trying to tease Bruce M.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2011 - 12:37am PT
|
Bruce, will there be information sessions in Vancouver also? It would make considerable sense. What dates, times and places have been announced?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2011 - 12:07pm PT
|
Sorry if this was covered earlier.
There are already large crowds that stop at Shannon Falls. Will the gondola be close enough so that they could/would walk to it from that parking?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2011 - 02:36pm PT
|
And I'm guessing the gondola wouldn't be pay parking, for a start? So as not to discourage customers. I am curious because on big weekends with fine weather, parking is getting to be in short supply.
I wish the train would put in a stop at the south end of the Malemute.
If the gondola caught on there might be buses headed there from town, too.
I love the drive but would like other options. I'd sell a piece of my soul, the part that would object to looking down from the Bulletheads into a parking lot, for other ways to get to and from Squamish.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2011 - 02:56pm PT
|
Unless there is a grouse grind type trail up to this Gondola I find it hard to believe the loop trail at the top will attract that crowd.
The price for Grouse is 39$ for a day and 98$ for a year
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2011 - 04:19pm PT
|
It sounds like it is economically a marginal proposition. Which in turn means that the proposal should be scrutinized very closely. If it goes bankrupt (or equivalent), who will clean up the mess? Worse, will some shyster pick it up for pennies on the dollar, claim to be saving the situation, then go nuts with unacceptable activities and developments?
The developers would lose their money, true. But Squamish, and the parks, would be left with an indelible, negative advertisement.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2011 - 05:36pm PT
|
Has anyone been to any of the open houses? What happened? Any word as to whether there will be open houses in Squamish's southern suburb, aka Vancouver?
|
|
| Messages 1 - 53 of total 53 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!