Comments on: Whistler's Bankruptcy: Meaningless or an omen?

By: LionKing

LionKing — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:29:57 +0000

Perhaps riders will actually go out in the woods again…its free.

By: Paul Andrews

Paul Andrews — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:29:31 +0000

Thanks Maarten, You’re just not old enough. I go back to the Whistler of the ’60s and ’70s when they actually turned down a chance to host the Winter Olympics. Till the mid-’90s Whistler had a real backwoods rebel element to it, where a lot of urban refugees (post-hippies) knew what would happen if monied interests gained control. (I still have trail maps that designate “proposed Mountain Bike park.”) They did. And it did.

By: Tim Bukoski

Tim Bukoski — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:55:19 +0000

I agree with Maarten and Paul on certain points. I think Intrawest (and Whistler as a part of it) are simply more victims of the speculation era. Everybody was a hero who could conjure up new financial wizardry and those same people thought growth was endless and banked on it.

I don’t think being overbuilt will bring prices down, rather it keeps them up due to the required upkeep or quality will suffer as funds diminish. This could become the ‘GM of resorts’.

By: Maarten

Maarten — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:19:28 +0000

I’m having trouble following you here. First off, Whistler has always been owned, developed, and operated by a corporate developer. Quaint and pedestrian-friendly as it is, did it ever have more soul than Disneyworld? Who is this “onetime innocent” that was led astray? Intrawest? Second, if the golf crowd moves on, won’t that bring prices back down and give “soul” a chance to settle in? Being overbuilt should help prices come down all the faster.