Editor:
Lost in the dense and often confusing details regarding the Three Sisters Mountain Village development project in Canmore is the sheer magnitude of the current proposal compared to earlier proposals.
Their earlier proposals, spanning 1998 to 2013, called for adding the equivalent of one Banff (ie., 2,729 residential units). The current Three Sisters proposals, when “bonusing” is included, would be well over two Banffs, and when combined with their existing Stewart Creek residential units, three Banffs. That’s a massive amount of development for an ecologically sensitive area with extensive undermining.
In 2013, there were about 2,500 unbuilt residential units remaining, and 1,500 visitor units (eg., hotel rooms). These numbers were derived from the allowed maximum units in Bylaw DC 1-98, part of the overarching legal framework for Three Sisters lands. Here’s a 2013 RMO article in this regard. As a footnote, the 2009 Three Sisters Master ASP plan by East West Partners was significantly smaller (about one Banff total, including Stewart Creek).
What happened in 2013? With impressive financial acumen and alchemy, Three Sisters acquired their own now-bankrupt project back, after which their residential building ambitions dramatically increased, and their promised commercial projects vanished (ie., their five-star hotel and a conference centre).
Fast forward to now: Three Sisters’ proposed residential units have increased from about 2,500 in 2013 to between 4,000 and 7,150 in 2021. So, a 57 per cent to 180 per cent increase in residential units from 2013 (sorry about all the numbers but they are important). Three Sisters proposes to receive “bonus” residential units to sell if they help create some perpetually affordable housing units (PAH), and increase energy efficiency.
Regarding PAH units, keep in mind that in 2013 the owners proposed five per cent PAH, without the new self-enriching “bonusing” (ie., ballooning) concept. And regarding energy efficiency, the “bonusing” doesn’t even achieve B.C.’s current building code, to say nothing of net-zero.
The equivalent of one Banff at Three Sisters is hard enough to imagine, but two or three is unfathomable, and for whose benefit? The impacts on our environment (wildlife corridors, parks and carbon footprint), our infrastructure (eg., increased road and bridge congestion), our tax rates (due to an anemic commercial tax base), our community values, and lastly, our quality of life would be profound and permanent.
Jacob Herrero,
Canmore
