City councillor Ted Laking wants Whitehorse to grow up.

Literally.

During Monday evening’s regular committee meeting, Laking returned to one of his favourite subjects – the development of the city – and, you could say, got on his high horse about the need for the city to carefully ponder accepting the need for taller buildings.

He said it has long been obvious the city needs to “infill” – make better use of existing space, particular in the downtown core.

Laking is of the opinion, though, that it’s not just lateral intensification the city needs. To be blunt, it needs to turn its eyes to the sky and build higher buildings.

Traditionally, the approach to growth has been simple. Since the city has a large geographical footprint, it’s been easier to grow outward and create subdivision after subdivision, such as Whistle Bend and Copper Ridge.

Laking said that comes with its own challenges, such as providing new infrastructure to the outlying areas, rather than creating housing and business space where the city services already exist.

He said he appreciates the sentiment that many people prefer Whitehorse keep its “quaint” identity as a small city. Laking said he identifies with that himself.

Nor does he want to see Whitehorse become the next Vancouver, with 100-storey skyscrapers.

There is a “sweet spot” in between that will allow Whitehorse to balance its development needs with retaining its identity, he suggests.

Laking spoke extensively on that concept with the Star on Tuesday afternoon.

He said he is frustrated with the situation, and some of the justifications residents use to voice their opposition to higher buildings.

One of those he pointed out was a concern about buildings casting shadows, which was discussed extensively at Monday’s meeting.

Laking said such concerns shouldn’t be used as an excuse to dodge the need for larger buildings.

“I think there’s a lot of work to be done by all levels of governments. There’s a very significant role for the municipality to have here,” Laking said.

“One of the primary ways is for the city to grow up, not just out. For a number of years we’ve been limited as to the heights of buildings in the community.

“Oftentimes the reason for (not) going up is a mentality of we don’t like shadows or things like that,” he added.

“If we’re going to worry about things like shadows, we’re not going to be able to truly address the housing crunch. When people are more worried if there’s going to be shade on a sidewalk, I just don’t think it’s the right approach,” the first-term councillor said.

“We spent an hour debating shadows, and that’s where my frustration came out. If we’re going to put someone through the wringer every time a proposal comes up, then we’re just going to slow down our ability to handle the housing crisis. I know change is difficult, but ....”

Mayor Laura Cabott was one of those concerned about the shadows.

She questioned just how far a shadow a six-storey building would cast.

Laking said he thought he had a good compromise solution.

“I think it’s fair to say we’re not ready to be a metropolis that has 100-storey buildings but at the same time, we are dealing with a housing crisis and we need to find a balance. Families need to find a place to live, and this is one way to do that in a sustainable way.”

Laking said it’s reasonable to consider eight- or 10-storey buildings.

The Official Community Plan allows for buildings to rise to 25 metres, but the zoning bylaw hasn’t been updated to reflect that – leaving developers in a bureaucratic limbo.

“Going up is one thing we haven’t had a lot of in our community.

“The mentality that we can’t have tall buildings because we’ve never had tall buildings is just self-defeating.”