PDA

View Full Version : [Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

fenwick16
May 1, 2010, 4:22 PM
Source ( http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1180196.html )
The government wants Rank to own, design, build, finance and maintain the convention centre, which some people estimate would have a price tag in the range of $100 million to $120 million. The province hopes the funding would be split evenly among the federal, provincial and municipal governments, which would finance the convention centre through a lease arrangement with Rank over a number of years.

If this is a lease arrangement then there might not be a lot of up-front capital required from the three levels of government. I wonder if it will be difficult for Rank Corp to arrange financing. Is there a precedent for the federal government to pay an annual percentage of such an arrangement?

Keith P.
May 1, 2010, 5:36 PM
Amazing to read the comments in Saturday's Herald article. The negativity is astounding. These are typical Nova Scotians who know nothing of the economy or the convention biz, but it is still disappointing to see the deeply-rooted negative attitudes towards growing the economy and making downtown more vibrant.

One wonders how many of those commenting actually ever set foot in the existing WTCC or have ever been to a modern convention center. BTW, sources tell me that the 6th floor of the existing WTCC center has been overrun with mice the last couple of weeks. If they are on 6, they are everywhere in that building. Maybe they should have a cat convention. :)

fenwick16
May 1, 2010, 5:47 PM
I did a quick search of the internet to see if other convention centres are getting funding from the federal government. I found information on three:

Ottawa Convention Centre Funding – Up to $50 million federal funding - http://www.feddevontario.gc.ca/eic/site/723.nsf/eng/h_00106.html

Niagara Convention Centre – Up to $35 million dollars federal funding - http://mediacentre.canada.travel/content/industry_news/niagara-convention-amp-civic-centre-niagara-falls-canada

Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion – Up to $225 million dollars federal funding – http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/77_2698.asp

fenwick16
May 1, 2010, 6:04 PM
Amazing to read the comments in Saturday's Herald article. The negativity is astounding. These are typical Nova Scotians who know nothing of the economy or the convention biz, but it is still disappointing to see the deeply-rooted negative attitudes towards growing the economy and making downtown more vibrant.

One wonders how many of those commenting actually ever set foot in the existing WTCC or have ever been to a modern convention center. BTW, sources tell me that the 6th floor of the existing WTCC center has been overrun with mice the last couple of weeks. If they are on 6, they are everywhere in that building. Maybe they should have a cat convention. :)

I think that as soon as opponents hear of a positive article, they come out in full force. I hope that the convention centre can be built for $100 million dollars (with partial federal funding). The design looks quite unique to me so I hope that it can be done for that price. It would certainly be a building that Haligonians can be proud of.

It sounds like the mice have deserted the Herald building and are now spreading throughout downtown Halifax.

worldlyhaligonian
May 1, 2010, 7:23 PM
I think the future of downtown hinges on this development going forward.

People that are against this just don't know what they are talking about. There are no other options!

sdm
May 1, 2010, 8:37 PM
I think the future of downtown hinges on this development going forward.

People that are against this just don't know what they are talking about. There are no other options!

I wouldn't put faith in just this development saving downtown.

There are a number just waiting to go that will have just same amount of impact as this development. Problem is they are waiting for the local market to improve and the financing arrangements to be less strict. Till that happens they will be slow to go.

planarchy
May 2, 2010, 12:32 PM
I think the future of downtown hinges on this development going forward.

People that are against this just don't know what they are talking about. There are no other options!

I completely disagree.

The future of downtown may hinge on the all these vacant lots being developed soon - but the ultimate success and economic viability of present and future service-base or retail businesses in the core has little to do with a convention centre. It has more to do with filling these vacant lots with high-density housing and a complete renovation of our public transit system.

fenwick16
May 2, 2010, 12:50 PM
I completely disagree.

The future of downtown may hinge on the all these vacant lots being developed soon - but the ultimate success and economic viability of present and future service-base or retail businesses in the core has little to do with a convention centre. It has more to do with filling these vacant lots with high-density housing and a complete renovation of our public transit system.

I partly agree with you. High density housing and public transit are important. I just don't see why it is one or the other (these two items that you mention or the convention centre). The convention centre will also bring people to the downtown area. Eventually if Halifax is going to become a location that people will want to live in, it will have to have some modern amenities. The current Convention Centre is an embarrassment to the Halifax area.

I get very frustrated with the opponents of the convention centre. Luckily Halifax already has the Metro Centre, cruise ship terminal, two bridges across the harbour, and Citadel Hill - since I am sure that the same people would be arguing against these venues if they weren't already there.

Having said this; I think that the new convention centre is only worthwhile at the right price. If the price starts to increase significantly upwards then at some point it will no longer be worth the price. At $100 million with federal funding then I think it is worthwhile.

someone123
May 2, 2010, 9:18 PM
The downtown needs all it can get basically. Residents are key but convention centre business would also be important, and retail is not all there is to the downtown core. Partly it is also an economic engine for the entire region - if it does not have the right amenities then business will pass the city by (and, by extension, all of Atlantic Canada in many cases, since nowhere else is suitable). There won't be a market for lots of high density residential downtown or public money for an improved public transit system if the economy isn't strong.

I think the most fundamental problem downtown isn't the lack of residential, it's the fact that everything is painfully slow to change and develop. Old infrastructure is decaying and becoming obsolete and it is not being replaced in a timely manner. Unless things speed up considerably we will continue to see the downtown fall apart. One or two little buildings and street paving projects every 5 years is not enough.

Looking at places like Toronto and Vancouver I am always disappointed with how slowly things move in Halifax. In Vancouver things actually get built, even though financially this city is in no better shape. Infrastructure and development projects planned 5 years ago are a reality today. In Halifax there are the same old empty lots and spineless politicians and everything is slowly wasting away, failing to meet its potential while people who apparently have never seen a functional city delude themselves into thinking everything is fine.

worldlyhaligonian
May 3, 2010, 1:48 AM
I completely disagree.

The future of downtown may hinge on the all these vacant lots being developed soon - but the ultimate success and economic viability of present and future service-base or retail businesses in the core has little to do with a convention centre. It has more to do with filling these vacant lots with high-density housing and a complete renovation of our public transit system.

i agree with those points... but there are no proposals for a real public transportation network and i believe the other proposals would benefit from the economic spillovers.

aside from the design and the site, why are you so against this??? seriously, tell me the real reason??? please, if it is some other reason, let me know the truth.

also answer this:
if this project doesn't happen, how long will this lot sit vacant?


i had to move out west because there are hardly any international trade jobs in halifax, and if you think conventions have nothing to do with trade... then you don't know what you are talking about because planning them is a significant part of my work.

sdm
May 3, 2010, 2:23 AM
also answer this:
if this project doesn't happen, how long will this lot sit vacant?



I know that there were plans for the site (seen renderings)for residential, retai, and commercial office prior to the RFP launch for the new trade centre. I could only assume that these would be brought back to the table. With HRM by design the turn around for planning approval is to be 60 days after submission.

halifaxboyns
May 3, 2010, 4:45 PM
I know that there were plans for the site (seen renderings)for residential, retai, and commercial office prior to the RFP launch for the new trade centre. I could only assume that these would be brought back to the table. With HRM by design the turn around for planning approval is to be 60 days after submission.

Is there any rules regarding time that needs to go by before a new application can be submitted? I know in most cities in Alberta, there is a 'cooling down clause' that usually prevents any new applications on a site (regardless the proposal) for 60 days.

If there is such a clause in this case, then it may end up they'd have to wait 2 months and then submit a new one...

planarchy
May 3, 2010, 9:32 PM
i agree with those points... but there are no proposals for a real public transportation network and i believe the other proposals would benefit from the economic spillovers.

aside from the design and the site, why are you so against this??? seriously, tell me the real reason??? please, if it is some other reason, let me know the truth.

also answer this:
if this project doesn't happen, how long will this lot sit vacant?

I'm not against the convention centre at all, as a project. I just cannot possibly support the short-sightedness of this proposal in its current form. This site could support a lot of great buildings/projects. And for me height is not an issue - go as high as you want. But recognize the limitations of this site as a site for a convention centre. It is completely unsuited for this type of program. So for me, as you said, it is primarily about design - both as an architectural and urban intervention in the city.

As for how long the site will site vacant- I have no idea. And I agree that this is a huge problem - both here and other sites in the city. But to sink this much money into a project this flawed (strictly speaking in regards to the current site) just to fill in a hole - no way. The whole process surrounding this - the RFP call, the selection process, the proposed design, etc. is ridiculous. I'd rather see the city give the property owner 30+ stories to maximize potential profit, but with very precise design guidelines as far as material, and relationship at ground level.

So aside from the design and site, I'm not against this. But these two issues are huge! and can't be ignored.

DigitalNinja
May 4, 2010, 2:21 AM
Where else would you propose that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to tear down something big or so far out of the way that public transit is useless. The site is not a bad site, its a block away from the old one. The renderings are not final there was a newer one on the herald website and it looked quite good IMO.
I guess it would be better in Sackville after all.

spaustin
May 4, 2010, 2:29 AM
Sounds a lot like my misgivings on this one. I think this site would have been better used as a more tightly built residential and commercial mix, the original plan A. The area already has a dead space in the form of the Metro Centre, it doesn't need a second space that activity comes in and out of like a flash flood. I'm also worried that the centre will ruin Grafton Street and I'm a little concerned about the massing on Argyle. The real shame in the Convention Centre though is that it's a real missed opportunity. Government money is going into it so it was a chance to do something that wouldn't otherwise happen, like tearing down the Cogswell, kicking off something on the waterfront or further connecting Pier 21 into the rest of the city. Rank was going to utilize these blocks regardless. We didn't need to put the Convention Centre there to make it happen. It's too bad that where we find ourselves now is support an imperfect design or scrap the whole thing.

fenwick16
May 4, 2010, 2:56 AM
There is a cost to tearing down the Cogswell Interchange. There are questions as to whether a convention centre will be built for $100 million, so it seems that it would be even less likely if the same space costs $125 - $130 million. I assume that this site was chosen because it was the lowest cost.

someone123
May 4, 2010, 3:09 AM
There's also a cost to keeping the Cogswell Interchange, but in the HRM those costs tend not to be properly evaluated. Millions of dollars in potential property taxes are wasted because nearby land values are depressed and land is taken up by this piece of largely useless infrastructure. The city also has to pay to maintain the interchange and it is rapidly aging. It doesn't serve a real purpose for traffic because the highway connecting to it was never built, and it is terrible for pedestrians.

fenwick16
May 4, 2010, 3:36 AM
Is there that much maintenance required on the Interchange? I would like to see it torn down but it might be better for the city to wait 10 - 20 years until they have to spend a significant amount to maintain it. By that time if the city continues to grow it will be worth much more.

someone123
May 4, 2010, 3:45 AM
Last year they spent around $500,000 on it and maintenance requirements are just going to go up. I am not sure when it will have to be overhauled, but it is from the same era as, for example, the overpass that fell apart in Montreal.

I don't think the argument that it will be worth more in the future is a good reason to avoid tearing it down. Its value is hard to predict but will most likely continue to go up over time. There's no proof that selling it in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years will be better but in the meantime we know that there is a cost to keeping it around.

One argument is that it is a lot of land and there's already lots of empty space downtown but I don't think this is a reasonable concern either. Even if demolition plans went forward today it would still be years before there would be actual land ready for development. I also don't think that grassed over lots would be any worse than what's already there. Again, just not a very good reason to base decisions on.

DigitalNinja
May 4, 2010, 4:54 AM
I think the cogswell lands would be better used for pure office buildings to integrate the rest of the business area with it.

sdm
May 4, 2010, 12:08 PM
I think the cogswell lands would be better used for pure office buildings to integrate the rest of the business area with it.

Agreed, however i would have accepted a new trade centre there before the proposed location. At least then the costs of the interchanged could be absorbed into the new development.

The problem is if places like International place can't get off the ground the land in the cogswell interchange area will sit empty for decades until something is built (based on the historical absorbtion rates of new office downtown over the past 15 years).

The province would need to do the opposite of what it is doing now, by lowering taxes, promoting new businesses to come here and make this place a more affordable place to do business. We are currently going to opposite way .

DigitalNinja
May 4, 2010, 3:01 PM
I agree with you.
Also don't blame the government for this, blame the voters. People should have enough knowledge about the NDP and they would know this was going to happen. That's what you get when you live in a society where people want everything for nothing.

Phalanx
May 4, 2010, 5:16 PM
Out of curiosity - would the proposed library site be big enough to hold a convention centre? Just wondering what would happen if they traded locations.

Keith P.
May 4, 2010, 8:53 PM
Out of curiosity - would the proposed library site be big enough to hold a convention centre? Just wondering what would happen if they traded locations.

The Province owned the SGR/Queen library site until a few months ago when they did a land swap with HRM. But forget the idea; HRM Chief Librarian Judith Hare demanded that she get the best retail corner east of Montreal for her monument to herself, and no other options were ever seriously considered. It would be a poor location for a CC anyway due to lack of hotel adjacency.

halifaxboyns
May 5, 2010, 3:07 AM
The Province owned the SGR/Queen library site until a few months ago when they did a land swap with HRM. But forget the idea; HRM Chief Librarian Judith Hare demanded that she get the best retail corner east of Montreal for her monument to herself, and no other options were ever seriously considered. It would be a poor location for a CC anyway due to lack of hotel adjacency.

Not to mention that the site is painted by 2 view planes; so you'd never be able to get the building height.

Phalanx
May 5, 2010, 3:12 AM
I wasn't thinking of the current design, just wondering if a convention centre that would meet requirements and future needs could be placed on the site. The towers wouldn't be necessary, would they?

worldlyhaligonian
May 5, 2010, 3:29 AM
I wasn't thinking of the current design, just wondering if a convention centre that would meet requirements and future needs could be placed on the site. The towers wouldn't be necessary, would they?

The towers are necessary... honestly, I'm saying this for the last time... the WTCC isn't just a convention centre, the acronym stands for World Trade and Convention Centre.

They are partly responsible for trade promotion and education (delivery of the FITT program) in the region and offer a variety of services. Also, the offices for Tourism Nova Scotia, and related governmental organizations are housed in there.

Basically everybody thinks this is just a convention centre when really the new facility will also be the heart and soul of active investment and tourism attraction. Its actually a joke how little we do in the way of this because of our lack of resources (i.e. no facility).

If you are against this trade centre than you are actually against economic development in Nova Scotia.

Straight goods... its like arguing against a stadium automatically means you are against having a pro sports franchise... you can't have one with out the other.

worldlyhaligonian
May 5, 2010, 3:36 AM
Jesus, I didn't like Rodney... but we better see this through... or get left in the dust...

fenwick16
May 5, 2010, 3:52 AM
The towers are necessary... honestly, I'm saying this for the last time... the WTCC isn't just a convention centre, the acronym stands for World Trade and Convention Centre.

They are partly responsible for trade promotion and education (delivery of the FITT program) in the region and offer a variety of services. Also, the offices for Tourism Nova Scotia, and related governmental organizations are housed in there.

Basically everybody thinks this is just a convention centre when really the new facility will also be the heart and soul of active investment and tourism attraction. Its actually a joke how little we do in the way of this because of our lack of resources (i.e. no facility). Personally, I would like to see it go ahead on budget so that there is money for other facilities.

If you are against this trade centre than you are actually against economic development in Nova Scotia.

Straight goods... its like arguing against a stadium automatically means you are against having a pro sports franchise... you can't have one with out the other.

I am personally for the Trade/Convention Centre based on it being a convention centre alone. I didn't know that much about the trade centre portion (however attracting trade to Nova Scotia is extremely important).

I hope it goes ahead (at the estimated $100 million). Then I hope a stadium will also go ahead in the near future (for under $40 million).

halifaxboyns
May 6, 2010, 4:32 AM
Wasn't part of the reason of including a hotel and office tower to recoup some of the cost that the NS government would have to put into it?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that as part of the agreement with Rank was that the money would be recouped not only through the economic spin offs but a portion of the income from the hotel and office rentals?

fenwick16
May 6, 2010, 10:37 AM
I think by allowing them that height at that location they can generate more income from the development, so for that reason they can keep the convention centre price down. This is why it is considered to be beneficial to the public and is included in the HRMbyDesign document. However, I don't think that the HRMbyDesign height limits should have been so low in the first place. It just reduces the incentive to develop many areas in the downtown core.

halifaxboyns
May 6, 2010, 3:25 PM
I think by allowing them that height at that location they can generate more income from the development, so for that reason they can keep the convention centre price down. This is why it is considered to be beneficial to the public and is included in the HRMbyDesign document. However, I don't think that the HRMbyDesign height limits should have been so low in the first place. It just reduces the incentive to develop many areas in the downtown core.

What didn't impress me with HbD was that it seemed the height maximums were actually lower in many areas where they should've been higher (because they actually could go higher under the viewplanes).

What worried me (and still does) is that in order to achieve any great investment in downtown - HbD will end up being subject to amendment applications; which for something so important may be 'death by a thousand cuts' (so to speak). It may also end up showing some shortcomings with the document.

fenwick16
May 6, 2010, 5:12 PM
What didn't impress me with HbD was that it seemed the height maximums were actually lower in many areas where they should've been higher (because they actually could go higher under the viewplanes).

What worried me (and still does) is that in order to achieve any great investment in downtown - HbD will end up being subject to amendment applications; which for something so important may be 'death by a thousand cuts' (so to speak). It may also end up showing some shortcomings with the document.

There must be some better way to protect heritage buildings in Halifax than by enforcing such strict height controls. Perhaps strong protection for heritage buildings and also have part of the tax from the taller buildings go towards subsidizing the shorter, economically unfeasible heritage buildings.

someone123
May 6, 2010, 10:08 PM
The problem with HbD is that it only took developer requirements into account in a very abstract, distant way.

Height limits don't protect heritage buildings. It's important to make this clear in discussions. Wind is also basically a solved problem - a developer can avoid wind problems with a good building design and wind study, so it makes no sense to talk about this as a drawback of all highrises. Shadows and blocked views are sometimes a problem but it really depends on the proposal. With this proposal, for example, neither is a major concern.

fenwick16
May 7, 2010, 4:17 AM
More bragging by Tim Bousquet (some reader figured out how to read a couple unimportant blacked out sections in the convention centre reports and he reported it) and inflation of the convention centre square footage again by Tim Bousquet at "The Coast" (source: http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/conventional-tactics/Content?oid=1633976&cb=1b8da508c2d158e82b7ab38026de55e8&sort=desc#readerComments )


Conventional tactics
A laughable failure at censoring documents shows that convention centre advocates aren't interested in informed debate.
by Tim Bousquet

Last week, provincial infrastructure minister Bill Estabrooks nearly made good on his pledge to release uncensored versions of the four reports that supposedly make the business case for a new convention centre---one of the reports, by Criterion Communications, was redacted in two places, and another, by the consulting firm Deloitte, had a redacted table in it.

Earlier, Estabrooks' communications manager Cathy MacIsaac had warned me that "small portions" of the reports would remained censored in order to protect "trade secrets" ---information that might hurt the competitiveness of crown corporation Trade Centre Limited or of Rank, Inc., the company picked as the private partner in the convention centre arrangement. I was skeptical, but there wasn't much I could do about the censored parts of the documents anyway.

That is, until a reader alerted me to a laughable failure on the censor's part. The reports had been put online, and the censor had simply changed the background colour of the censored portions to black, so that at first glance the documents looked like a typical blacked-out hard copy document. But the censor failed to remove the text, so I found that if I copied the "censored" text in the Criterion report and pasted it into a Word document, I could read it.

Turns out both redacted parts said the same thing: "recent costs in North America have been in the range of $400-$500 CDN per square foot for a typical combination of spaces, which suggests a very rough estimate between $120 and $170 million CDN for construction of a 300,000- 340,000-square-foot facility, exclusive of design, furnishings and equipment costs."

How exactly this is a trade secret? Any number of trade publications report the same information on a regular basis, so it appears the censor wanted to keep the information not from potential competitors, who would surely already have the info, but from us, the public, in order to keep us from having informed debate about the convention centre proposal. (After we reported the redaction failure, the online redacted Criterion report became un-redacted.)

This incident is once again proof that Nova Scotian governments and crown corporations have a culture of secrecy and consider government information the private property of bureaucrats. I don't know how else to say it: They hate democracy.

With yet another example of government secrecy run amok, on top of MLA spending scandals, P3 scandals, hidden $600,000 expenditures for Paul McCartney and who knows what other chicanery, it's a wonder that anyone at all would trust the bullshitters and backslappers who run this circus with the $100 million the convention centre will supposedly cost us. (I guarantee you that figure will go up.)

But, amazingly, there are still plenty of convention centre supporters, and they point at the reports to argue their case.

To be sure, the four reports are internally consistent, and they make the case for a new convention centre. But they rely entirely on information provided by Trade Centre Limited.

Which brings us back to the Deloitte report, which was censored by someone with slightly more knowledge than that provided by an Idiot's Guide to Censoring book---the copy and paste trick didn't work in this case. The censored table lists $6.5 million in "lost business" for the existing World Trade and Convention Centre---60 groups that were going to bring 75,955 delegates to Halifax. But the group names are censored, so we have no way of verifying the information---we're supposed to take Trade Centre Limited's word for it.

But like the construction cost info, this is hardly a trade secret, and making the names public would hurt no one at all.

Again, I simply don't believe TCL. I think they're lying, or at least stretching the truth: I'm guessing that any group that made a single call asking for information and didn't subsequently book a convention was considered "lost business," and used to inflate the case for a new convention centre.

It's not like this group of clowns has a good track record for being forthright. Why should we trust them?

beyeas
May 10, 2010, 3:31 PM
Just as a side-note FYI, the conference I was just at was at a fairly new/modern large conference centre that interestingly was placed way the heck away from the city centre. There were 6000 people attending, almost all of whom had to take public transit to get to there from their hotel.

Of course the reason why they could do that is the HUGELY better transit system compared to anything we might have in the next generation. Not even like the specific system was anything more than average for Europe, but LIGHT YEARS ahead of most north american systems (had bus systems that linked with subway and regional train systems out of a central and regional hubs).

The airport was also way way out of the city (ala Halifax), but again, the difference was that there was an express train that took you at 200 km/h to the city centre in a matter of minutes. One person asked me if Halifax had something like that, and I just laughed and told them we recently had the major step forward of replacing the coin-fed meters with a parking garage. /sigh/

halifaxboyns
May 10, 2010, 10:56 PM
I attended the Americian Planning Association's conference in Las Vegas a couple years ago at Balley's and Paris hotels on the Strip. While most things I needed (restaurants, small shops) were within walking distance - the main LV convention centre was quite difficult to get too from the strip - even though the event wasn't actually held there. I tried to get to it, just out of curiosity.

The traffic on the strip was bad, most of the day. Added to that, the 'BRT' (and I use that term as loosely as possible) called the Duece was a joke on the strip. Each stop typically took about 10 minutes mainly because of people asking questions, not prepared with fares or just slow in offloading or traffic.

Once it got off the strip and closer to downtown - it was okay. The benefit of the hotels on the strip was that most of them have major conference facilities, so you can stay on the strip and not really have to go far for what you need (since Walgreens was equi-distant in either direction of my hotel, the Planet Hollywood).

The shuttle from the airport was quick, but any decent shopping at the outlet malls was not easy to get too - it was 2 buses (the duece and then another bus) away and the schedules weren't great.

I wasn't able to attend the world planning conference in Vancouver in 2006, but had fellow planners who did and they said it was well setup - good access by public transit and good distribution of hotels.

Now the APA event I went too was about 10,000 planners, engineers, designers and architects from all over the US and the globe. I know the world planning conference was about the same magnitude of people as well.

I really see Nova Centre as providing the possibility of a similar size conference being held in Halifax; not just as a planning conference, but anything really. The only concern I have would be if Halifax were to get to that level - are there enough hotels within easy walking distance. For me, Planet hollywood worked because the conference was at Paris next door. But if I were attending a conference in Halifax, depending on the circumstances - Dartmouth hotels might be getting a bit too far away. For example, the hotels out in Burnside and Dartmouth Crossing (or even the airport and Sackville) might be too far because of poor transit connections; where as the ones in Dartmouth (including the Holiday Inn by the bridge) would be easier because of access to the Bridge Terminal or the ferry. Same with the hotel on Robie/Quinpool - since it's within walking distance.

fenwick16
May 11, 2010, 12:49 AM
This sounds like a tier 1 event. With 10,000 delegates, I don't see how Halifax would be able to hold it since it simply doesn't have that many hotel rooms. I think that the goal of the new Nova Centre is to be able to attract tier 2 events at best. But you never know, maybe once in a while Halifax will get a major international event.

kph06
May 12, 2010, 12:52 AM
This Website (http://visionairservices.smugmug.com/Other/Halifax-EasternShore/11987489_yKHC9#849884227_fjUuo-X2-LB) has great aerial photos of Halifax, the image directly linked shows this site from a few weeks ago. Really shows how big the hole in the downtown it currently creates. There's some other great photos from around HRM.

someone123
May 12, 2010, 1:39 AM
This sounds like a tier 1 event. With 10,000 delegates, I don't see how Halifax would be able to hold it since it simply doesn't have that many hotel rooms. I think that the goal of the new Nova Centre is to be able to attract tier 2 events at best. But you never know, maybe once in a while Halifax will get a major international event.

Halifax has in the range of 5,000-5,500 hotel rooms (for comparison's sake, Las Vegas is over 100,000, although not everybody there is going for conferences :)). There are probably over 1,000 proposed but it is unlikely they would all be built.

Of course, some delegates would be from the city it is held in. Something else to keep in mind is that I think they count visitors per day in many cases, so it's possible that hosting a conference with 10,000 visitors means putting up 2-3,000 in hotel rooms or something similar, which is doable in Halifax.

Many of the hotels in the city are downtown because that is where most visitors want to stay and where the convention centre is currently located. It doesn't seem hard to imagine that there will be something like 2,000-3,000 rooms nearby if the Nova Centre is built. The Lord Nelson and Westin Nova Scotian together are around 500 rooms.

macgregor
May 12, 2010, 2:05 AM
The empty lots definitely leave a big hole.

It would be great to develop the Cogswell interchange and the port grounds (Halterm). But why do so when there are empty lots downtown and not enough demand to fill them?

halifaxboyns
May 12, 2010, 5:05 AM
I have a hunch that if Nova Centre is built there will be a move to have large conferences right away - to show that they can make it work. So I suspect that there will be some large conferences that will test the hotel capacity and when it's shown that it may not be enough; many of the people interested in building hotels will move forward to do it.

Considering twisted sisters includes a hotel component, that will add more hotel rooms.

I think Halifax has got a unique situation in that you could have a conference there and stay at a hotel in downtown (like the Lord Nelson, Westin or Prince George) plus there are other hotels in the area. Then you have in close proximity (short walk) the old Holiday Inn on Quinpool, plus the Commons Inn on Agricola. Then because you also have a connection by ferry to downtown Dartmouth, which has a couple hotels (Ho Jo and Super 8) plus the Holiday Inn at the Bridge terminal. Most conferences provide transit passes in the city they are in - to encourage people to visit and explore. So lots of close hotel rooms in the core.

fenwick16
May 12, 2010, 11:47 AM
There will also be the hotel associated with the convention centre once built.

Even if Halifax doesn't get the very large 10,000 delegate conventions, it is set up to hold two medium size convention at the same time so it might sometimes get say two 2,000 - 3000 delegate conventions. Then the hotels will be packed.

The problem will be during the peak tourist seasons when the hotels are heavily booked. Luckily, conventions are usually not held during the peak summer season. This will be great for hotels in the Halifax area since it will bring more people in during the non-peak periods of the spring and fall (but probably not the winter).

Jonovision
May 12, 2010, 12:28 PM
‘ All-out war’ predicted over convention centre


The new convention centre pro posed for Halifax has its vocal opponents but the downtown business community says build ing it should be a priority.

The Downtown Halifax Busi ness Commission has released the results from a recent survey of its membership and 31 per cent of the respondents said the con vention centre is the most impor tant piece of infrastructure need ed for a more vibrant downtown.

Local developer Rank Inc.

wants to include the convention centre as part of its multimillion dollar Nova Centre complex, along with a hotel and retail and office space, on the site of the former Halifax Herald Ltd. build ing on Argyle Street.

Convention centres are not traditionally stand-alone profit centres. They are used around the world as revenue generators for surrounding businesses, and governments recover their in vestment through increased tax revenue.

That fact has not been lost on downtown Halifax’s business community, which has been suffering through a down period.

The membership has wanted a bigger and better convention centre to be a priority for more than a decade.

But opponents are trying to block the government investment in the convention centre because of the height of the buildings included in the complex, which they argue would block the view of Halifax Harbour from the ramparts of Citadel Hill.

The developer and others say the old Herald property was not included in the original legisla tion that the former City of Hali fax passed to protect sightlines from Citadel Hill, nor was it add ed to Halifax Regional Municipal ity’s new HRM by Design devel opment plan. So highrise construction will happen on the site — with or without a convention centre.

Well-known developer Robert Stapells is angered by the anti highrise position that groups such as the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia have taken. He agrees with convention industry experts who have said the existing World Trade and Convention Centre, designed in the 1970s, lacks basic amenities such as proper exhibition space, dining capacity and loading docks.

“At this very moment, we are on the doorstep of another all-out war of conflicting downtown aspirations involving the anti development gang, who wish to remain quaintly planted in the past, and the pro-development crowd, who wish to create a stag ing ground for a more modern central business district," he says. Stapells, who was a member of the old Halifax city council from 1971 to 1974, says he remembers as a young alderman voting in favour of protecting 11 sightlines from Citadel Hill on the evening of Jan. 31, 1974. He says some of the same people who oppose the convention centre today were urging council at that time to pass the legislation, saying that high rise development would then be allowed on lands that were not included.

“Make no mistake, the Heritage Trust’s new smoke-and-mirrors stance has nothing to do with the economics of the world’s conven tion business, as they now claim," Stapells says. “It remains all about stopping higher-rise enterprise in the downtown.

“These people have a long standing record of anti-devel opment activity. Together they have cost private enterprise, tax payers and our grandkids many millions of dollars, not to mention many thousands of hours of staff time and major damage to our international reputation."

And so the battle continues, until Rank Inc. submits its final proposal for the site to the pro vincial government by July 19 and the government makes a decision on whether to partly fund the convention centre com ponent of the complex. That decision is expected in the early fall.

(rtaylor@herald.ca)

http://halifaxchronicle.can.newsmemory.com/newsmemvol1/canada/halifaxchronicle/20100512/ch_pe_05-12-10_c04.pdf.0/img/Image_2.jpg

fenwick16
May 12, 2010, 1:59 PM
The opponents of this are out in full force. Anyone who supports this convention centre should seriously consider posting a comment regarding this story at the following link: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1181983.html. Based on business surveys and the support the convention centre petition (the support petition has more than twice the signatures of those opposed) I think most people are in favour of this convention centre. So I hope that the opponents won't make it sound like they are the majority again.

sdm
May 12, 2010, 2:43 PM
The opponents of this are out in full force. Anyone who supports this convention centre should seriously consider posting a comment regarding this story at the following link: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1181983.html. Based on business surveys and the support the convention centre petition (the support petition has more than twice the signatures of those opposed) I think most people are in favour of this convention centre. So I hope that the opponents won't make it sound like they are the majority again.

It appears there is more opponents challenging the business case, not the view issue.

kph06
May 12, 2010, 2:44 PM
I'll repost what I commented on the article, finally one with a less slanted view on the Save the View group.

It’s nice to finally see someone in the media explicitly point out the Heritage Trusts antics. I cringe every time they try to give an amateur economics lesson with respect to this development. The fact of the matter is they don't like tall buildings. If we were talking about a 3 story 100 million dollar trade center in Burnside they would not be fighting it. Economics is simply the tool they selected for this battle to mask their hatred for anything new and tall. These select few make themselves loud and unfortunately they are given the pedestal and “authority” by council and the media that makes them appear as a larger portion of the population than they actually represent. When push comes to shove they are just a special interest group and don’t deserve the preferential treatment they receive.

sdm
May 12, 2010, 2:51 PM
Nice study the downtown business commission did, however there were only 6 choices a respondant could make, and i didn't see office development as one of them.

macgregor
May 12, 2010, 3:06 PM
This Website (http://visionairservices.smugmug.com/Other/Halifax-EasternShore/11987489_yKHC9#849884227_fjUuo-X2-LB) has great aerial photos of Halifax, the image directly linked shows this site from a few weeks ago. Really shows how big the hole in the downtown it currently creates. There's some other great photos from around HRM.

That picture and the others are excellent. I'd really like monthly phototours by helicopter.

halifaxboyns
May 12, 2010, 3:22 PM
I actually posted a comment not about the business case, but meant to deflate the viewplane argument.

When I read the argument, I got that this guy wanted to deflate that argument once and for all and I agree with him.

I enjoyed Fenwick's comments and I'm sure others from here have posted as well - I use the same name there as here, but I think there is a definate group strategy here. Wow, this sounds like war room tactics.

Alright troops - here is the strategy: I'll nail'em on the viewplane/heritage angle and you go get'em on economics! :jester:

Wishblade
May 12, 2010, 6:22 PM
What I dont understand is why these groups are using the view to attack the convention centre. It's been stated that even if the convention centre doesnt go through, the highrises will be built, so they are actually inevitable:

"The developer and others say the old Herald property was not included in the original legisla tion that the former City of Halifax passed to protect sightlines from Citadel Hill, nor was it add ed to Halifax Regional Municipal ity’s new HRM by Design devel opment plan. So highrise construction will happen on the site — with or without a convention centre."

So their only real argument is their statement that the convention industry is biting the dust, which isn't much of a leg to stand on according to the reports that were released...

beyeas
May 12, 2010, 6:38 PM
What I dont understand is why these groups are using the view to attack the convention centre. It's been stated that even if the convention centre doesnt go through, the highrises will be built, so they are actually inevitable:


So their only real argument is their statement that the convention industry is biting the dust, which isn't much of a leg to stand on according to the reports that were released...

There might be a height difference though. If it is built as the convention centre then it gets the special exemption that was granted. If it is built as just a typical development, then HbD applies, and the height limit for a development there is lower. They know that if they kill the convention centre then at the very least the building will have to be lower in height than what is proposed now. Hence the desire to kill it as a convention centre.

someone123
May 12, 2010, 6:59 PM
There might be a height difference though. If it is built as the convention centre then it gets the special exemption that was granted. If it is built as just a typical development, then HbD applies, and the height limit for a development there is lower. They know that if they kill the convention centre then at the very least the building will have to be lower in height than what is proposed now. Hence the desire to kill it as a convention centre.

I'm not sure the "Save the View" crowd has thought that carefully about these things. Clearly they are either not thinking very clearly or are not very articulate, because there are much better lines of reasoning against the convention centre than what they have presented. I would guess that they are simply opposed to most new development on an irrational emotional level, which is why we see bumper sticker level battle cries.

Many people have utterly incoherent opinions when it comes to what should be done downtown. This is normal. The problem is that they are given too much weight.

sdm
May 12, 2010, 8:08 PM
What I dont understand is why these groups are using the view to attack the convention centre. It's been stated that even if the convention centre doesnt go through, the highrises will be built, so they are actually inevitable:


So their only real argument is their statement that the convention industry is biting the dust, which isn't much of a leg to stand on according to the reports that were released...

No that is certainly not grounds to say they don't want it. However, reading the fine print, it appears all the data from the reports were supplied by trade centre, therefore there is a possibility that these reports need to be validated on their accuracy.

The Save the View crowd (heritage trust) should just stop now as this development has nothing to do about views. It should be about what we can afford and therefore the discussions (debate) should be on those merits, not on planning issues at this point. Sure planning issues can come into play (design) once we made the commitment that it is feasible to build.

fenwick16
May 12, 2010, 8:37 PM
The real problem is that it is not really possible to validate the reports. As in any business, it will never be a sure thing.

It seems to me that many people against the convention centre want a "sure thing". To me it is a matter of people having a positive attitude that the Halifax area can succeed. I feel very confident based on the success of the current convention centre that the new convention centre will be able to attract a fair number of conventions (far more than most cities the size of Halifax).

I think the main issue should be the cost and whether or not the backers of the convention centre will be able to get federal funding. If the cost is too high and no federal funding is available then it will not be the right proposal. In this case maybe the Cunard Centre can be expanded (this could be be a second option - if it could be done for say $50 million dollars). The best case will be a reasonably priced Nova Place convention centre with federal funding.

The question in my mind is that if the funding is split equally between the three levels of government for a $100 million dollars convention centre will the provincial NDP fund it? I actually feel more confident of the federal funding than the provincial funding. However, we don't even know what the funding arrangement will be. I keep reading that it would be owned by Rank Corp and leased to the municipal/provincial government (will the federal government pay part of the leasing arrangement)?

someone123
May 12, 2010, 8:50 PM
It seems to me that many people against the convention centre want a "sure thing".

There are a bunch of fallacies coming from people who are opposed to the convention centre on economic grounds. In addition to the problem of people thinking the government can afford to only invest when there is no risk, a lot of people also think that everything can be built by the private sector. The logic goes that (1) if it's profitable the private sector will do it so (2) if they aren't it won't be profitable.

This logic is wrong because there are plenty of examples of infrastructure that are worthwhile on a large scale but not feasible for a single business to build. A private business building a major convention centre in downtown Halifax would not be able to capture all of the spinoffs from conventions (hotel night stays, restaurant visits, other tourist activities). The benefit to a potential developer is much lower than it would be to the city as a whole, and so sometimes it makes sense to build this kind of public infrastructure when it would be infeasible to do it privately.

Halifax could rely on the private sector for convention space, but then we'd get more facilities like the Cunard Centre and hosting major events would not be a possibility.

Of course, pointing this out does not prove that the development is worthwhile.

fenwick16
May 12, 2010, 9:14 PM
If a private investor was able to collect the 15% HST on hotel accommodations associated with the convention centre, HST on meals, gifts, etc. then it is likely that a private investor would be interested. However, it is the government that collects these taxes so it makes sense for it to be funded by government.

Some cities have a hotel tax that could be applied to a convention centre and tourist promotion. However, I don't know if the HRM has considered this.

sdm
May 12, 2010, 10:52 PM
Halifax could rely on the private sector for convention space, but then we'd get more facilities like the Cunard Centre and hosting major events would not be a possibility.

Of course, pointing this out does not prove that the development is worthwhile.

See thats where my sense is these days. Why not have more convention space that is privately funded and targeting the more active market, which is in the range of 600 - 900 delagtes? Projects like International Place, Twisted sisters, Salters Street and Queenslanding i believe all have convention space within their developments.

See to me we should be promoting more development of the smaller centres, allow (and hope) that the herald lands be built residential and in the end i think this move would more then save downtown. I for one do not agree this development will save downtown.

fenwick16
May 12, 2010, 11:46 PM
I have a feeling that some people will be cursing me for my misguided opinions but I am having second thoughts about the new convention centre. One reason is because Halifax has a 45,000 square foot columnless meeting hall (Cunard Centre) directly on the waterfront that is owned by the Halifax Port Authority (and operated by RCR Hospitality Group). What a great location right next to the water, Pier 21 and cruise ship terminal. This would be a great opportunity to spend a bit of money to expand this facility and maybe tear up the tracks to the south of the Via Station (but not the Via tracks). More parking could be added. A private interest could build a large hotel, etc., etc., etc. I never thought that I would say it but maybe sdm was right all along.

If $20 - $30 million were spent on this facility, it could probably be doubled in size and opened up with lots of windows so people would have a panoramic view of the water. Then take the money that has been saved and spend part of it on a outdoor municipal stadium ($30 million dollars only). Then Halifax will have a great convention facility and an outdoor stadium for about 1/2 the price of the new convention centre. And to be fair to Rank Corp, for all the trouble that they have gone through at the request of the provincial government, allow them the same building height as they would of had with the convention centre included in the development (i.e. allow what is in the HRMbyDesign).

Maybe I am missing something here?

(source: http://www.rcr.ca/catering/venues/cunard-centre/ )
http://www.rcr.ca/img/catering/hdr/events-corporate.jpg

DigitalNinja
May 13, 2010, 2:04 AM
The thing is though, is a big center should not be on the water. That should be a place for the public, and nice area to view with quality development. Not something that will be built and nothing will be done for a long time.

fenwick16
May 13, 2010, 3:24 AM
I have mixed feelings on this convention centre. If the cost is right then I hope that it will go ahead but if it doesn't then there are some other options such as the Cunard Centre.

halifaxboyns
May 13, 2010, 4:41 AM
I see some good points from both Fenwick and Digitalninja.

I agree that the waterfront should really be more of a public space, or at least an active space all the time where commercial can occur and maybe some residential (like lofts) done above with a modified building.

However, fenwick also points out a good point that a large meeting space already exists.

Where I think Cunard Centre falls down is it's location, within the current context. The parking isn't really good and transit access is poor. Where as Nova Centre would have the benefit of all downtown parking, transit access and walking distance from hotels (although the westin would be an exception in favour of Cunard).

I see Cunard Centre is being a spot that probably won't get a lot of convention traffic - perhaps more of the party kind of event, like weddings or big get togethers. It might also be more appropriate a space for a big party, say after or during a conference, when the actual conference space is setup in a more meeting style setting?

As to previous comments about the heritage trust and save the view - where groups like these typically fall down; is in the articulation of their thoughts. They feel that have to throw so many reasons at council to oppose something that they don't setup their thoughts in a logical, coherant way and that's where their fight falls down. Most groups like that, especially out here in Calgary, typically get the glazed over looks from council and typically few if any question and don't get taken seriously.

fenwick16
May 14, 2010, 11:51 AM
Yesterday on my way from the Philadelphia International Airport to the city convention center on the train, I saw this tower (Murano Tower) in Philadelphia and thought that the exterior looks similar to the Nova Centre rendering. This tower in Philadelphia actually looks very good and really stands out. I liked both the rounded shaped and the cladding. (this is not the Philadelphia Convention Center, it was just a tower that stood out in the skyline)

(source: http://www.mainlinemag.com/CMS/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/murano.jpg )
http://www.mainlinemag.com/CMS/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/murano.jpg



The Philadelphia Convention Center (not the tower above) is right downtown and like the Nova Centre proposal is built on two city blocks (but the blocks are about double the size of the Halifax city blocks). The exhibit hall is on the second level and is built over 12th Street. I noticed that the exhibit hall has several columns, however for a trade show it has no really detrimental effect on the exhibit booths. I took some pictures, but I just posted one from the internet instead.
(source: http://www.aapm.org/meetings/2010AM/images/Philadelphia-Convention-Center.jpg ) - I wasn't at the aapm convention - this photo from the internet just shows how the center is built over 12th Street. I was at a construction trade show (CSI - Construction Specifications Institute - not the Crime Scene Investigation on TV, which would likely be more interesting).
http://www.aapm.org/meetings/2010AM/images/Philadelphia-Convention-Center.jpg

halifaxboyns
May 14, 2010, 4:32 PM
Good eye Fenwick - I think you are right on the design. I find that renderings really don't give projects justice somtimes depending on the type of printer and quality of the print.

Models help; but they too sometimes don't quite do it.

fenwick16
May 14, 2010, 5:56 PM
I think that the office tower of the Nova Centre will turn out to be very unique since it has rounded corners and is a slanted parallelogram in shape (i.e. it is not a typically box shaped office tower).

In my opinion the convention centre portion doesn't need to be elaborate; it just needs to be large enough to meet the needs of Halifax and be functionally suitable. So I really hope that it will be built economically and not go overboard on interior aesthetics. I have been to many convention centers in North America and I don't think that anyone pays much attention to the interior finishings. In my opinion, spending millions of dollars extra on expensive woodwork (for example) will be a waste of money. However, having it near the downtown core is important for visitors from out of the province. So my first choice, is for the Nova Centre to go ahead. The second choice would be for the Cunard Centre to be expanded.

Jonovision
May 15, 2010, 2:18 PM
Downtown Halifax complex: the road to a happier outcome


RALPH SURETTE

Let’s start the story from scratch.

We have a big empty space in the heart of the capital city, a desire on all sides to fill it with some­thing that will make the city proud, and the usual corrosive dispute between developers and critics about how to do it.

Let me argue that the dispute is not as bad as it seems, and that we could even be inching towards something vaguely resembling compromise.

This is based on two things.

First, the process is now right. By making the background studies public, the NDP government has largely removed itself from suspi cion and put itself in a position to be an honest broker for the con­vention centre project.

Second, there’s been some subtle movement in the argument: The enemy camps are, in princi ple, not as far apart as they seem, although they’re still bristling.

In releasing the background documents to the project, Infra structure Minister Bill Estabrooks said this: “We look forward to receiving the submission this summer and doing a thorough review to determine if this is the right project at an affordable price. It will be important to hear from the public on a project of this magnitude before a final decision is made."

If so, it’s music to my ears, and possibly an open door to a proper development.

As for the arguments, let me first quote something from Hey wood Sanders, the University of Texas professor of urban planning whose research revealing the weak economics of convention centres blew open the debate here. In one of our conversations, he asked, of Halifax or any other city having built or planning a big convention centre, “How can you presume to attract strangers to your downtown if you can’t at tract your own people?" Good question.

Now switch to the local scene.

The developer party seems to have stopped arguing that Halifax needs a big facility because it’s losing out on big conventions. The bleakness of that argument seems to have sunk in: Cities throughout North America are in a sort of arms race of convention centres as business gradually declines, with all of them losing money.

Instead, the argument has shift ed to the stimulus effect, in which the public gets its investment back through the increased business and tax revenue such centres bring to downtowns.

There’s little or no evidence that they do that either, but this is actually a more promising line of argument — as long as another proposition is accepted: that suc cess will depend at least as much, if not more, on local business as on outsiders.

This brings us back to Sanders’ point. If success depends to great degree on local business, a down town complex with Nova Scotians in mind first will be more success ful, more profitable and more in tune with the personality of the city.

The preliminary project that developer Rank Inc. has proposed is a clunker, a thing from the North American urban planning cookie cutter, impressive from a distance but hostile to the life of the city up close — and built on the presumption that the taxpayer will pay.

Here’s a suggestion as the pub lic’s input is sought: survey the suburbs for ideas as to what would draw them downtown, and survey the organizations that now use the Metro Centre for ideas.

The goal, if such is possible, should be development amenable to both Nova Scotian and nation al/ international business, and in tune with the life of the city. This is a proper challenge, it seems to me, for both architecture and urban planning.

And a challenge for public finances, let’s not forget. Regard ing the Rank Inc. proposal, we started talking about $100 million in public funds (in a public/pri vate partnership arrangement, another sticky point). Now the figure rattling around is $200 million and we haven’t started anything yet. If experience else where serves, we might be talking about $400 million. All of which underlines the point that this is of vital interest to the province as a whole and its finances, not just Halifax Regional Municipality.

And which reaffirms the point that the government — that is, the taxpayer — actually has the whip hand in deciding what goes ahead and what doesn’t, and all depends on how it uses it. Best of luck to you, Bill Estabrooks.

Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County.

(rsurette@herald.ca)

fenwick16
May 15, 2010, 3:34 PM
When I started reading this article, it sounded like a reasonably unbiased article. But once he started stating that the costs are now at $200 million then it just reaffirms my belief that Halifax really does need a suitable convention centre. No detailed costs have been released; these inflated numbers are coming from people such as Ralph Surette. If these people want to be taken seriously, they should recommend a suitable alternative instead of deciding that a large convention centre isn't required.

In my opinion, Halifax needs a suitable tier 2 convention centre that is functional but just basic in design. I am not entirely convinced that Halifax needs to spend even $100 million for such a facility but I am convinced that Halifax does need a facility close to downtown which can host medium size conventions. This is a way to attract people to Halifax; in order to grow Halifax must promote itself as a business location.

PS: I wonder if people like Ralph Surette tells his anti-development friends when his columns will be released so that they can be the first to post comments in agreement. It always seems like the same people post comments as soon as these columns come out and this is what people usually see first - all the ones opposed.

Keith P.
May 15, 2010, 6:07 PM
Ralph Surrette is never unbiased. He is a NDPer from way back. I knew that article was a hatchet job the minute he invoked Saunders' name as some sort of expert. The same way, CBC Radio is not objective -- yesterday I caught a bit of their afternoon show and listener feedback on a piece they had done earlier in the week on the proposed center. Apparently that had some of their usual left-wing suspects on (I didn't catch it) and the feedback was more anti-development left-wing cheerleading. My favorite was a comment from someone who said "I go to lots of mining conventions in Halifax, and we never have a problem finding space". That person has no clue what is being discussed here. All too typical, sadly.

worldlyhaligonian
May 15, 2010, 6:23 PM
He's a fucking "freelance journalist"...

1) Apparently no real research was done here because the convention business is actually booming in some places (see Southeast Asia and the middle east)... Halifax would be an affordable place to hold them and I think that is where our competitive advantage lies

2) Once again... the whole development isn't the convention centre.

3) Canada is well positioned coming out of the recession to host more international conventions and conferences

4) Halifax is a big government/military/healthcare center... we attract conventions regardless.

5) The tax revenue would definitely be more than zero... so this is obviously positive for the economy. Spillovers for restaurants and retail would be even greater.

I'm working on a convention out west right now that will have 40,000 people attend and its in a city half the size of halifax and its not as beautiful or close to other major urban centres.


Hey, its cool if Nova Scotians want to fuck themselves... the feeling that I get out west is that they would do anything to have an opportunity like this and they don't squander the ones they are given.

Good luck shaking the lazy, stupid and non-progressive label maritimes.

worldlyhaligonian
May 16, 2010, 12:51 AM
Nova Centre site... I hope that there is truth to the discusion that there will be towers regardless of a convention centre.

I think that the groups against this aren't arguing against a convention centre... but just using that as an diversionary argument when really they don't want towers.

Lets hope there will be towers regardless... it would be a shame to waste this site on low rise. Look at how beautiful a site this is for some tall development.

Do you at least agree with that sdm? Or are you against towers (not the current design) on this site altogether?

Credit: Chris Campbell

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1027/4609183829_1959b4c078_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4609179319_a97b938bfb_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/4609784160_09da44351d_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1061/4609788934_1b5b653699_b.jpg

fenwick16
May 16, 2010, 2:44 AM
Personally, I am hoping that the Nova Centre will go ahead but I have become accustomed to preparing for the worst when it comes to Halifax area developments. It wasn't always that way - back in the 70's there seemed to be highrises go up everywhere in the Halifax area. Then the anti-development people started to get their way ....

I just hope that the convention centre portion of the Nova Centre will be economically priced so that people will accept it.

isaidso
May 16, 2010, 3:27 AM
Holy crap. Where did the Mail-Star go?

fenwick16
May 16, 2010, 3:53 AM
Most people refer to it as the Chronicle Herald building. It has been gone for about 1 month now; the mice and rats have deserted it and have now spread throughout the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Seeing how large these two blocks are, I think it will be an ideal location for a new convention centre. Hopefully it will be developed before anti-development groups start petitioning to have it turned into a park.

terrynorthend
May 16, 2010, 11:54 AM
Holy crap. Where did the Mail-Star go?

OMG! I haven't heard that name in years! I used to deliver the Mail-Star after school when I was a kid. :banana:

fenwick16
May 16, 2010, 12:30 PM
OMG! I haven't heard that name in years! I used to deliver the Mail-Star after school when I was a kid. :banana:

So did I. That's how I recognized the name. I delivered it back in the early 70's for 2 years (I remember the 1972 Hockey Summit was played during that time - that is a famous Canada/Russia hockey series for those who were not born back then).

Looking at the photos, Argyle is a nice looking street. The new Nova Centre will be a much better fit than the Chronicle Herald building. The opponents of the Nova Centre should send a civic award to Rank Corp instead of opposing this development. I will give them top marks if they can make this project a reality.

Keith P.
May 16, 2010, 12:40 PM
Not only is the Chronicle-Herald building gone, but the old-school paper that used to be published there has also gone. Under the editorial helm of ex-CBCer Dan Leger, he has brought in cronies from his old left-wing 4th Estate days like Ralph Surrette and added other left-wingers like the hopelessly bad Rachel Brighton. He is trying to turn it into the east coast version of the Toronto Star it seems.

worldlyhaligonian
May 16, 2010, 3:54 PM
What is the building behind Maxwell's... man that thing is ugly.

haligonia
May 16, 2010, 8:13 PM
I believe it is some sort of storage/warehouse facility. I don't know how someone was allowed to build what is essentially a giant, blank, lowrise wall.

sdm
May 16, 2010, 10:54 PM
I believe it is some sort of storage/warehouse facility. I don't know how someone was allowed to build what is essentially a giant, blank, lowrise wall.
its a data and cheque processing centre for a number of banks.

phrenic
May 16, 2010, 11:14 PM
I realize this was announced a week or more ago, but TCL hired the same woman to do PR for the Convention Centre as for the Canada Games. Really? They couldn't have found anyone who didn't still have the stench of secrecy, failure and bloated costs hanging above them?

Again, really? I feel like this should be the topic of the "Really? with Seth and Amy" SNL sketch.

This is what's making me nervous about this project, similar to the Commonwealth Games - the apparent lack of any formal communications strategy that puts the emphasis on benefits to the city and to the Province. I agree that this project would benefit Halifax and Nova Scotia as a whole if completed as envisioned but I've come to the point where I don't entirely blame the detractors for their skepticism.

The vast majority of the public - including me and many of you- has no idea what the convention centre business is really like in North America so their only source of information on the benefits of the project comes from its proponents. Given the checkered history of people at TCL and the state of the provinces finances, people feel like they need to see a rock-solid business case before they can feel comfortable with that much public money going toward this. It may very well be rock-solid, but it's being presented as "If you built it, they will come" with no way to guarantee any return. Yes, the reports talk about 60+ conventions that we missed because of our current facility, but there is still no way to determine how many of those would have actually come here if the size was available.

For many people, it all comes down to the fact that the same people responsible for the commonwealth games fiasco now want to spend $100+ million of taxpayer money on something where there is no guarantee - however likely it actually is - that the money will be made back. Most people simply don't realize the spin-off benefits that will occur and just aren't that trusting of bureaucrats. TCL really needs to hire a formal PR firm like MT&L to figure out how to educate people on the tax revenues and other ways that the public money will be made back.

fenwick16
May 16, 2010, 11:38 PM
For many people, it all comes down to the fact that the same people responsible for the commonwealth games fiasco now want to spend $100+ million of taxpayer money on something where there is no guarantee - however likely it actually is - that the money will be made back. Most people simply don't realize the spin-off benefits that will occur and just aren't that trusting of bureaucrats. TCL really needs to hire a formal PR firm like MT&L to figure out how to educate people on the tax revenues and other ways that the public money will be made back.

I have to agree with this point. That people need to be educated on the benefits of a convention centre. Most of the financial benefits to the province and federal governments will come from sales tax on hotels and restaurants. There are also the direct benefits from all the jobs that the construction will create. Then there are the indirect benefits in terms of promoting the city as a business and tourist destination.

I am concerned that the neither the NDP nor the HRM has been clearly stating the benefits of such a trade centre. There are numerous columns in the paper giving all sorts of distorted information, but few columns that state all the direct and indirect benefits.

If Nova Scotians feel that a trade centre is unnecessary, then it would make sense that the NS Tourism Department is unnecessary. They are both meant to do the same thing - promote the city and province. To me attracting people to the city and giving a good impression of the city is an important form of advertising.

halifaxboyns
May 17, 2010, 6:54 AM
The benefits of building a project like this are often the same as say *thinks* - if Halifax were to ever get the high speed system built or do an LRT/heavy rail commuter system or even (god forbid) a subway.

There is often a huge investment of public dollars - the Canada line is a great example (Fenwick help me out here) - wasn't it about 4 billion? Something like that or more?

So using the same idea - if Halifax were to build a subway of any sort, it would be billions of dollars. Well obviously; it's not going to be paid for tomorrow or next year - it will take 30 to 40 years. But there are other spin offs that happen with that (or even high speed ferries, rail etc.): Increased tax dollars due to increased investment.

A great example of that was the younge-sheppard line in Toronto. It was considered the subway to no where - no where near as much density to support the line; costing billions of $. But as it was being built, developers were putting together large parcels and submitting new applications and since - the density all along the line has been increasing. So when the TTC planned to shut it down, of course not only did the users get upset - but so did the developers who had approvals or their applications in the works. Because they hedged their bets on being able to build TOD style buildings, with less parking - supporting the subway.

The short of it is - a centre like this will attract conventions (obviously whatever the existing WTC attracts and possibly more). But what will also improve is if it's class 1 or 2 conferences; then more people will come to attend - filling hotels (and possibly supporting the need for more rooms); increased use of flights coming in and out (which may support increased capacity for flights at YHZ), etc. Those are the best I can think of right now; but obviously other spin offs such as meals in restaurants, buying collectables for their trip, drinks at some pubs and taking in some tourist things is also possible. But the other big thing it will do is expose people to Halifax and the stat i'm hearing is that 'typically' 60 to 70% of conference business come back to explore the place as tourists. Can you imagine the economic spin offs from that; assuming each family/couple came back and spent $1000 on their trip? It would really help.

isaidso
May 17, 2010, 7:39 AM
OMG! I haven't heard that name in years! I used to deliver the Mail-Star after school when I was a kid. :banana:

So did I, in Clayton Park. (1980s)

someone123
May 17, 2010, 7:04 PM
I realize this was announced a week or more ago, but TCL hired the same woman to do PR for the Convention Centre as for the Canada Games. Really? They couldn't have found anyone who didn't still have the stench of secrecy, failure and bloated costs hanging above them?

It really does feel like competence is in short supply when it comes to the government in NS and Halifax. My worry with this is that the convention centre will be torpedoed and then there will be another decade of paralyzing indecision.

It is very much like the Commonwealth Games. It would have been totally reasonable to build a very decent new stadium, upgrade some other facilities, and hold some sort of larger-scale event. Because the planning and coordination was so poor, we had a $1.5B (or whatever it was) pipe dream and ended up with nothing except a bill. It was pretty close to a worst-case scenario - embarrassingly poor but seemingly par for the course in Halifax.

DigitalNinja
May 18, 2010, 1:11 AM
its a data and cheque processing centre for a number of banks.


Symcore regional processing facility.

halifaxboyns
May 18, 2010, 5:21 AM
I've always believed that if they had been coordinated - the commonwealth bid could've been a real option for the city. I never believe that a City's size should ever hinder it - I mean, we had a G8 for godsake!

I'd be all in favour of an expo bid - even volunteer to help out if they went forward, granted a new convention centre helps that a lot lol.

fenwick16
May 18, 2010, 11:06 AM
I consider this to be a good sign. An HRM staff report states that the Rank Corp proposal fully conforms with the HRM by Design guildlines. (source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1183030.html#recommends )

Petitions fail to sway city
Controversial development proposals within guidelines, according to report
By BRUCE ERSKINE Business Reporter
Tue. May 18 - 4:53 AM

A city staff information report to be tabled at council today concludes that a plan to construct an 18-storey building on the former Halifax Herald site as part of a convention centre complex conforms with new downtown development regulations. (Peter Parsons / Staff)</p>]

City staff have shot down two petitions aimed at derailing major developments in Halifax, including the proposed new downtown convention centre.

A petition to council dated April 6 asked Halifax Regional Municipality not to provide public funds or lands to allow a private developer to block the view of the centre harbour and Georges Island from the roadway on Citadel Hill.

But a staff information report to be tabled at council today concludes that Rank Inc.’s plan to build an 18-storey building on the former Halifax Herald property and a 14-storey building on the former Midtown Tavern site as part of the convention centre complex conforms fully with new downtown development regulations, including protection of sightlines from Citadel Hill.

"Regional council deliberately entrenched the proposed massing and height of the proposed convention centre within the new downtown Halifax land-use bylaw and did so only after public consultation and a public hearing," said the staff report, prepared by planning applications supervisor Kelly Denty.

"The view of the centre harbour and Georges Island from the roadway on Citadel Hill is not and has never been a protected view under the land-use bylaw."

The report noted that Rank has until July 19 to submit a detailed design and cost proposal for the convention centre.

"No decisions have been made to date on whether or not any public moneys will be expended on the project," the report says.

Rank Inc. principal Joe Ramia could not be reached for comment Monday.

Municipal staff also gave a thumbs-down to a 270-signature petition dated April 27 asking council to stop the rezoning of 26 hectares of land on Hines Road and Howard Avenue in Eastern Passage owned by Armco Capital, an Armoyan company.

The lands are designated industrial under the municipal planning strategy and are zoned for both residential and industrial development.

Armco wants the residential designation applied to all of the land and is requesting a policy amendment to allow more than 12 units per multi-unit building on the property.

In a public information meeting in March, Armco presented a conceptual plan for the lands that includes 180 multiple units in three buildings plus 54 townhouse units.

Community development planner Mitch Dickey said the lands have as-of-right development potential under applicable R-1 zoning for single-unit dwellings and I-1 light industrial zoning.

"Many of the concerns expressed at the public meeting regarding Armco’s proposed development, such as those relating to traffic, loss of treed buffers, sewage treatment and wetland impacts, are the same in either scenario," Dickey said in the report to council.

He said the next step is for Armco to address concerns raised at the March meeting and provide more detailed project information.

"The standard planning process should continue, and this will result in a staff report which contains sufficient information for regional council to make an informed decision on the requested amendments," he said.

Armco officials declined comment when contacted Monday.

( berskine@herald.ca)

sdm
May 18, 2010, 11:59 AM
I consider this to be a good sign. An HRM staff report states that the Rank Corp proposal fully conforms with the HRM by Design guildlines. (source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1183030.html#recommends )

The statement is kind of misleading in the report.

The height would be allowed under HRM by Design, however the design would not fit within the scope of HRM by Design as it would not meet the FAR ratios and angle controls of the guide.

The save the view coalition needs to go quiet, the project doesn't block protected views.

The real discussion should come down to the business case, not planning rules.

fenwick16
May 18, 2010, 11:30 PM
The real discussion should come down to the business case, not planning rules.

Yes, it should be an open, unbiased discussion. If such a thing is possible. However, trade shows are like mini world expositions (or actually many mini expositions). Certainly the cities (i.e. businessmen) that host large trade shows are the cities that are promoting themselves and creating jobs for residents. So if the Nova Centre does not go ahead, what is the alternative? Is the Cunard Centre large enough to serve business trade shows for the Halifax area (in order to attract business from other parts of Canada and internationally)? Possibly, a larger convention centre such as the Nova Centre might also result in more business for the Cunard Centre by bringing more people to the city.

halifaxboyns
May 19, 2010, 5:04 PM
Yes, it should be an open, unbiased discussion. If such a thing is possible. However, trade shows are like mini world expositions (or actually many mini expositions). Certainly the cities (i.e. businessmen) that host large trade shows are the cities that are promoting themselves and creating jobs for residents. So if the Nova Centre does not go ahead, what is the alternative? Is the Cunard Centre large enough to serve business trade shows for the Halifax area (in order to attract business from other parts of Canada and internationally)? Possibly, a larger convention centre such as the Nova Centre might also result in more business for the Cunard Centre by bringing more people to the city.

I am hopefully that the planning merits can be argued in a manner that will be brief and be a matter of - it works (or doesn't) and then the business case becomes the main focus.

That being said, I had a quick peek at the MGA and I believe that the government would have the power to override and go ahead no matter what. But it's rare that stuff like that happens.

planarchy
May 21, 2010, 12:24 AM
Petitions fail to sway city
Controversial development proposals within guidelines, according to report
By BRUCE ERSKINE Business Reporter
Tue. May 18 - 4:53 AM

A city staff information report to be tabled at council today concludes that a plan to construct an 18-storey building on the former Halifax Herald site as part of a convention centre complex conforms with new downtown development regulations. (Peter Parsons / Staff)



City staff have shot down two petitions aimed at derailing major developments in Halifax, including the proposed new downtown convention centre.

A petition to council dated April 6 asked Halifax Regional Municipality not to provide public funds or lands to allow a private developer to block the view of the centre harbour and Georges Island from the roadway on Citadel Hill.

But a staff information report to be tabled at council today concludes that Rank Inc.’s plan to build an 18-storey building on the former Halifax Herald property and a 14-storey building on the former Midtown Tavern site as part of the convention centre complex conforms fully with new downtown development regulations, including protection of sightlines from Citadel Hill.

"Regional council deliberately entrenched the proposed massing and height of the proposed convention centre within the new downtown Halifax land-use bylaw and did so only after public consultation and a public hearing," said the staff report, prepared by planning applications supervisor Kelly Denty.

"The view of the centre harbour and Georges Island from the roadway on Citadel Hill is not and has never been a protected view under the land-use bylaw."

The report noted that Rank has until July 19 to submit a detailed design and cost proposal for the convention centre.

"No decisions have been made to date on whether or not any public moneys will be expended on the project," the report says.

Rank Inc. principal Joe Ramia could not be reached for comment Monday.

Municipal staff also gave a thumbs-down to a 270-signature petition dated April 27 asking council to stop the rezoning of 26 hectares of land on Hines Road and Howard Avenue in Eastern Passage owned by Armco Capital, an Armoyan company.

The lands are designated industrial under the municipal planning strategy and are zoned for both residential and industrial development.

Armco wants the residential designation applied to all of the land and is requesting a policy amendment to allow more than 12 units per multi-unit building on the property.

In a public information meeting in March, Armco presented a conceptual plan for the lands that includes 180 multiple units in three buildings plus 54 townhouse units.

Community development planner Mitch Dickey said the lands have as-of-right development potential under applicable R-1 zoning for single-unit dwellings and I-1 light industrial zoning.

"Many of the concerns expressed at the public meeting regarding Armco’s proposed development, such as those relating to traffic, loss of treed buffers, sewage treatment and wetland impacts, are the same in either scenario," Dickey said in the report to council.

He said the next step is for Armco to address concerns raised at the March meeting and provide more detailed project information.

"The standard planning process should continue, and this will result in a staff report which contains sufficient information for regional council to make an informed decision on the requested amendments," he said.

Armco officials declined comment when contacted Monday.

worldlyhaligonian
May 21, 2010, 1:41 AM
Looks like we'll probably see something tall on this site, convention centre or no convention centre.

Take that shady groups trying to push your bogus agenda.

sdm
May 21, 2010, 1:53 AM
Looks like we'll probably see something tall on this site, convention centre or no convention centre.

Take that shady groups trying to push your bogus agenda.

actually thats not the case. If the trade centre doesn't go then the special bonus height gets reverted back to levels determined under HRM by Design, which is 8 stories more or less.

fenwick16
May 21, 2010, 2:39 AM
I am sure that the height of the buildings is their primary objection. I just wonder what these groups could achieve if they actually had a worthwhile cause to fight for.

Nilan8888
May 21, 2010, 3:38 PM
A great example of that was the younge-sheppard line in Toronto. It was considered the subway to no where - no where near as much density to support the line; costing billions of $. But as it was being built, developers were putting together large parcels and submitting new applications and since - the density all along the line has been increasing. So when the TTC planned to shut it down, of course not only did the users get upset - but so did the developers who had approvals or their applications in the works. Because they hedged their bets on being able to build TOD style buildings, with less parking - supporting the subway.

As a frequent user of that line I can say that it IS the subway to nowhere, but for the completely opposite reasons: not nearly enough of an investment was put into it. Development is following the subway line and that's great... the problem is that there's not nearly enough subway line.

The Sheppard line was stopped at least one major street short of where it should have gone to (Victoria Park, but it was stopped at Don Mills instead), and should have continued out Westward beyond Yongue.

TO now has a pitiful transit system for its size and I'd urge any city to learn from TO's mistakes and plan ahead. Altogether the TTC is currently acknowledged as the worst system in North America... that's right, ranking BENEATH Los Angeles. The downtown manages fine, but with Toronto one of the more geographically large cities in Canada or anywhere, that counts for a very small part of the picture.

Halifax needs some sort of plan to avoid this from happening. It's got time to spare but now is really the point they should be investing. Whatever happened to those high-speed ferries, anyway?

And oh yeah -- build the Convention Centre already.

hfxtradesman
Jun 10, 2010, 12:31 AM
Got a little info today. Pricing is still going on slowly, but it seems that EVERYBODY is on board with this project. Hopefully we'll know more soon.

fenwick16
Jun 10, 2010, 12:53 AM
Got a little info today. Pricing is still going on slowly, but it seems that EVERYBODY is on board with this project. Hopefully we'll know more soon.

Great news. I still hope that the convention centre will come in on budget. It doesn't have to be elaborate just functional.

There is a new website with information on the Nova Centre at https://conventioncentreinfo.com/?page_id=228

beyeas
Jun 10, 2010, 12:26 PM
Great news. I still hope that the convention centre will come in on budget. It doesn't have to be elaborate just functional.

There is a new website with information on the Nova Centre at https://conventioncentreinfo.com/?page_id=228

Thanks for finding the new website. It is interesting to see how WTCL is taking the offensive on some of the issues (like whether it will affect viewplans etc).

Also, based on the site, it seems like news should be expected sometime after July 19th (the deadline for Rank to submit the full submission.

Jonovision
Jun 11, 2010, 2:27 PM
A mighty ally for centre

By ROGER TAYLOR BUSINESS COLUMNIST
Fri. Jun 11 - 4:54 AM



The influential Nova Scotia Chambers of Commerce has come out in support of the proposed new convention centre in downtown Halifax.

The existing World Trade and Convention Centre must be recognized as an economic engine for the province, says Wayne Fiander, president of the group.

"Investment in this type of asset is critical to the sustained growth of the province."

The convention centre project can serve as a catalyst, he says in a letter, stimulating investments in hotels, restaurants and other businesses.

Comprised of 32 chambers of commerce across the province, the provincial organization claims to be the chief advocacy group for more than 6,700 business owners.

Fiander says the current convention facility in Halifax has been a success but, after 30 years, it needs to be replaced.

"A great deal has changed in the conference and meeting industry. While upgrades can overcome some of these constraints, the bottom line is that, in terms of competition with other facilities, ours is outclassed."

The convention centre would be only one part of a major hotel, office and retail complex proposed for the downtown. The entire project is estimated to cost close to $400 million to build, with the convention centre portion costing about $120 million.

Funding for the convention centre would be shared between the provincial government, Ottawa and the Halifax Regional Municipality.

A study conducted for the province by Deloitte consultants recommends the convention centre be structured on a design-build-finance-maintain model for ownership and operation. That would mean the private developer, Rank Inc., would own the facility and be responsible for the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of the facility. The private partner would finance the project in return for an annual lease payment over an agreed term.

The province’s Trade Centre Ltd., the current operator of the World Trade and Convention Centre, would be responsible for sales and marketing, catering and general site operations.

Fiander says some people may have trouble with the proposed public-private partnership, but many of the economic benefits of a convention facility can only be achieved by government.

"Surely the provincial government would not want to say no to $30 million in additional revenue that will be generated over just 10 years of operating the new facility. Objections to private-sector involvement is simply reflex," he says.

That’s the view of the Nova Scotia Chambers of Commerce, and now Trade Centre Ltd. has launched a website to provide information and gather feedback about the proposal.

The site, www.conventioncentreinfo.com, provides background on the project, has a weekly discussion forum and invites feedback.

The information already available on the site includes preliminary convention centre reports and a recently completed JDA Architects report that reviewed the practicality of renovating the current convention centre to meet the specifications in the request for proposals for a new convention facility.

In addition to the website, Trade Centre Ltd. will host public open houses at the World Trade and Convention Centre on June 23 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and on June 24 from noon to 2 p.m.

The detailed submission from the developer, with a design and facility management plan, financing and price, is due July 19. A decision on whether the project will proceed will follow a detailed evaluation by the provincial government.

( rtaylor@herald.ca)

Haliguy
Jun 11, 2010, 3:23 PM
Thats good news!