[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[someone123]

Never experience is incorrect, i will correctly say for extended periods dependant upon the time of year.

The other study i would like to see is a wind study, as again with the placement and the southeasterly/northeast wind it would be interesting how the struture would interact along the street.

Wind does seem like it might be an issue given the fact that the facade is mostly unbroken on the Argyle Street side.

Even if the buildings were much shorter (e.g. 8 storeys) they would block just about as much sun on Argyle, and during the nicest times of the year when the patios are used there tends to be a lot of light either way (not much shadowing in June, lots in December). Those patios are also busy at night when there is no sunlight either way. The sunlight issue is a little exaggerated and there's no way to preserve full light for the whole downtown area. This is part of why there are public spaces like the Citadel and Public Gardens.

[sdm]

Wind does seem like it might be an issue given the fact that the facade is mostly unbroken on the Argyle Street side.

Even if the buildings were much shorter (e.g. 8 storeys) they would block just about as much sun on Argyle, and during the nicest times of the year when the patios are used there tends to be a lot of light either way (not much shadowing in June, lots in December). Those patios are also busy at night when there is no sunlight either way. The sunlight issue is a little exaggerated and there's no way to preserve full light for the whole downtown area. This is part of why there are public spaces like the Citadel and Public Gardens.

Good point, the point really is i think all would like to see if a study. Its impossible to build without blocking the sun in some shape or form. However because the structure spans the block it will create a larger shadow i believe.

The wind i think could be a bigger issue, but again without a study who knows.

[fenwick16]

Here is a shadow study for the Roy building proposal which is about the same height. The Roy tower is the one in red - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01172ShadowStudy.html It is easiest to see in full screen mode.

There will be a shadow cast during times of the day but some people prefer being in the shade on hot summer days. It seems as though most businesses on Argyle Street are in favour of this project since it will result in more customers emanating from the convention centre.

[halifaxboyns]

I guess I would agree with you someone123 to an extent. I think to a degree height is an issue (somewhat); but design can correct the issue. I think the city staff are getting much more experience dealing with the design issues and dealing with them well. Not always; there have been a few applications where some design considerations could've been thought out more. But still, they are doing a pretty good job...

I would have to agree about the hotel and I think with more consultation we'll see that change.

As a wise former boss pointed out to me; every development has effects. You can never fully negate everything and so i'd agree with the comment that parts of Agricola would be in shadow for a long period - but that can change with the design. Good design can reduce effects, but not totally resolve them. Trillium is a great example of where design worked well, but still doesn't fully negate shadow effects on the gardens and adjacent park. I think we all need to accept that some effects will occur, it's just a matter of how well we work to negate them.

I'm sure further reworking of the design will reduce the sun shadow and like Trillium, good design can negate the wind impacts too.

[Empire]

Darrell throws millions of dollars at his home riding........did anyone vote NDP?


"I attended South Queens Junior High School when I was a young man, so it holds a special place in my heart," said Premier Dexter in a Department of Education news release. "I know that the new school will be an excellent addition to the community. It will make life better by enhancing the learning environment for students.

Darrells new school
http://www.ssrsb.ca/latest-news/new-school-announced-for-south-queens.html

[sdm]

I guess I would agree with you someone123 to an extent. I think to a degree height is an issue (somewhat); but design can correct the issue. I think the city staff are getting much more experience dealing with the design issues and dealing with them well. Not always; there have been a few applications where some design considerations could've been thought out more. But still, they are doing a pretty good job...

I would have to agree about the hotel and I think with more consultation we'll see that change.

As a wise former boss pointed out to me; every development has effects. You can never fully negate everything and so i'd agree with the comment that parts of Agricola would be in shadow for a long period - but that can change with the design. Good design can reduce effects, but not totally resolve them. Trillium is a great example of where design worked well, but still doesn't fully negate shadow effects on the gardens and adjacent park. I think we all need to accept that some effects will occur, it's just a matter of how well we work to negate them.

I'm sure further reworking of the design will reduce the sun shadow and like Trillium, good design can negate the wind impacts too.

The question remains, how much public input will there truly be? Again i have no problem with the height, its the massing all along argyle street. It would be interesting to see a street view looking south on argyle street to see how it would loook.

[halifaxboyns]

The question remains, how much public input will there truly be? Again i have no problem with the height, its the massing all along argyle street. It would be interesting to see a street view looking south on argyle street to see how it would loook.

I guess it will depend on how serious they are about actually thinking about public input. I would think that because a development agreement will probably be required - there would be some staff input to it; so going back to what I said earlier; I suspect there would be design changes.

Frankly; I would hope that the team from HbD would get involved and give some suggestions. But I guess it will also depend on how much 'delay' everyone is willing to stomache on this. I have a sneaking fear that if we move forward; it will either be 'get the da done fast' or it will be token public consultation and 'get the da done fast'. If I were to suggest a good solution; I'd say hold off on the public input until the DA process starts and then do it. But be prepared for people to keep trying to hijack the process and get back into the financial debate.

[halifaxboyns]

I thought I would post this because this made me laugh. As I mentioned before, I joined the STV facebook group - mainly to be a shi* disturber. One of my friend's Mike is doing it too; it's fun.

Anyway, this got posted directed at me today after someone posted a note basically accusing the group of supporting sprawl. When the moderator said they weren't doing that; I responded by basically saying well lets see; HT has appealed pretty much every development in 20 years...what does that say?

So here is the posting that was directed at me:
"Ken, James and all other like minded out there. If you had the money to spend that most developers have you, too, would not build in DT. Neither, Save the View nor Heritage Trust are holding them back. GET IT STRAIGHT! The market is holding them back. As Turner Drake and other reports have said the market is not there.... Why? Because Halifax Councils have built roads to Bayers Lake, Dartmouth Crossing and other such places where the parking is free, etc. In DT the parking is not free and Council constantly raises the parking meter costs scaring away more people. DT taxes are a lot higher than in the business parks too. So there!"
As someone who thought; I might be able to sway one point of view - that post shows to me; they are hopeless and have no understanding.

Just for the record, my response:
So there? Real mature. It's a response like that will ensure the downtown will never densify. Yes; planners made huge mistakes in the 70's and 80's letting downtowns die but that's hardly isolated to Halifax. Every city suffered that. Why do you think places like Toronto and Vancouver stores do well in downtown? A combination of more people in downtown which then attracts more offices. To build a convention centre out in the burbs is a huge mistake. Besides, zoning can change. More cities are turning the sprawl around by setting maximum parking standards so you can't have a sea of parking to encourage more development back into the core. A number of cities have done that in the US.

One other thing - since you say that STV and the HT aren't holding back downtown development - then you would have no problem with a change to twisted sisters going from an office tower (hotel remaining unchange) to a residential tower instead? Same with the Discovery Centre? What about the Roy Building? The turner drake study talked about offices; it didn't talk about condos which is very strong in HRM.

[fenwick16]

These people will drive you crazy. Do they really want the convention centre in the suburbs?

PS: I see the allnovascotia.com posted an irate letter by a pro convention centre supporter with the same last name as me (it was me, I wrote it after reading 3 negative articles/commentaries in a row).

[beyeas]

Yeah I figured it was you, since I recognized some of the text from your post on here. :-) LOL

[DigitalNinja]

You should post your letter on here for the rest of us to read :P

[fenwick16]

Just one of my usual rants, similar to post # 1989. ok, so allnovascotia.com is back in my good books.

[Northend Guy]

Perhaps there should be an antithetical facebook group called 'Save the View...And the Future' or something like that. Something that actually presents a balanced approach to downtown development. I'm all for maintaining sight lines from the Citadel, but I think they need to be chosen a little bit more discriminately. Making arbitrary claims as to the significance of some of the current sightline restrictions seems to be slightly excessive. It is true that the Citadel has historical significance, and consideration needs to be given to that. However, history does have its place. The problem is if you try too hard to preserve history, the present and the future suffer. When that happens, what will be Halifax's legacy? A city devoid of life but with a cool beginning and we have the artifacts (and view) to prove it? Or a vibrant city that pays due homage to its history, and still has a fabulous view? I know which one I would prefer.

[Wishblade]

This small article shows what Ben McRae thinks of the hotel to be part of the convention centre complex...:

Proposed hotel could lead to glut

JENNIFER TAPLIN
METRO HALIFAX

A new downtown hotel — as part of the convention centre proposal — is worrisome to other hotel operators.

Ben McCrea’s Armour Group is working on an office-building and hotel development called Queen’s Landing in downtown Halifax. But if Rank Inc.’s proposal goes forward, it would set Queen’s Landing back several years, McCrea states.

“That will put more pressure on the hotel business downtown ... there’s going to be a price war and an occupancy war,” he said.

“Right now there really isn’t a market but we hope in a year or two it will rebound, but with this it will be years and years.”

Jeff Ransome, general manager of the Halifax Marriott Harbourfront Hotel and also the president of the Hotel Association of Nova Scotia, applauds the convention centre but is a little worried about a big, new hotel in the area.

“As an operator I look at the new hotel with mixed emotions: It’s great because it’s a necessary feature so we can get our convention centre up and running, and then I think there’s a period of time where the hotel industry is at risk because of the fact there will be more rooms on the market,” he said.

There are about 12 hotels in downtown Halifax, half of which have convention space.

[fenwick16]

Jeff Ransome, general manager of the Halifax Marriott Harbourfront Hotel and also the president of the Hotel Association of Nova Scotia, applauds the convention centre but is a little worried about a big, new hotel in the area.

“As an operator I look at the new hotel with mixed emotions: It’s great because it’s a necessary feature so we can get our convention centre up and running, and then I think there’s a period of time where the hotel industry is at risk because of the fact there will be more rooms on the market,” he said.

This sounds like a sensible opinion by Jeff Ransome. On the other hand, Ben McCrea just sounds like a pessimist. Essentially he is saying - don't build the convention centre and hotel because it will mean competition for him.

The convention centre hotel is 4 years away. By that time an increase in hotel capacity will likely be required.

[someone123]

Halifax hotels actually tend to be expensive when compared to other much larger cities. I wonder how much of that is due to a lack of competition.

In NS in general there's a very bad tendency to accept complaints against competition and preserve uncompetitive industries that provide relatively poor, expensive service. If you coddle one industry it will make more money and perhaps have more jobs but others that rely on it suffer and the economy as a whole suffers on the balance.

[beyeas]

This sounds like a sensible opinion by Jeff Ransome. On the other hand, Ben McCrea just sounds like a pessimist. Essentially he is saying - don't build the convention centre and hotel because it will mean competition for him.


Yeah he has been pouting a lot lately. He did the same thing in terms of the office building when he whined that if the office component of Nova Centre would mean he might not be able to build his office developments. I have lost some respect for him in the last while, given that he seems to think that the only developments that are important are his.

[Jonovision]

I do not have access to allnovascotia. I was told that Frank Palermo wrote an article in it the other day looking at the Convention Centre. Could someone post it please?

[fenwick16]

I do not have access to allnovascotia. I was told that Frank Palermo wrote an article in it the other day looking at the Convention Centre. Could someone post it please?

allnovascoria.com doesn't allow posting of its stories. However, I can quickly summarize it - under the guise of being neutral, he states that the towers are too tall, it is at the wrong location, it will result in poor street activity, the towers are mediocre 70's style worthy of tier II convention centres (however it will be competing with Las Vegas, he states), and it will have large, empty cavernous spaces (I think that I missed several of his neutral points :D ). However, all these things can be solved with public consultations (apparently it just needs to be completely re-design, moved to a better location and converted into a performing arts centre) :rolleyes:

PS: I re-read the story, he is not stating that it should be moved but that the current design is wrong for that location. He wants it to be useful as a performing arts centre. I remember Joe Ramia stating before HRM council that the Multifunction room can be used for concerts of 3000 - 4000 people (can some body confirm that?)

[beyeas]

PS: I re-read the story, he is not stating that it should be moved but that the current design is wrong for that location. He wants it to be useful as a performing arts centre. I remember Joe Ramia stating before HRM council that the Multifunction room can be used for concerts of 3000 - 4000 people (can some body confirm that?)

In my experience the main convention halls (which would be the only space in Nova Centre big enough to hold 4000 people I would think) do not make good performance halls.

I can certainly see that it would be a space to temporarily seat 4000 people for a large scale speaking engagement using a speaking dais, but it would not be well suited either acoustically or in terms of viewing experience for performances. Usually these centres have one hall with inclined seating that holds maybe 1000 people (in addition to the smaller spaces), but the main hall is really just designed for vendor displays etc. Any room that is designed to have a transport truck roll into it and set up large scale commercial vendor displays is unlikely to be well suited to watching the symphony!!!

[hfxtradesman]

Good news, THIS PROJECT WILL BE BUILT. Paper work is being signed as we speek by our great leaders:haha: Project will start in the spring, and there will still be public input on the look of the building. Good news for Halifax and the rest of the N.S.::cheers:

[Wishblade]

Good news, THIS PROJECT WILL BE BUILT. Paper work is being signed as we speek by our great leaders:haha: Project will start in the spring, and there will still be public input on the look of the building. Good news for Halifax and the rest of the N.S.::cheers:

So does this mean the federal government is in? I havnt heard anything on this since council approved it. If this is the case, fantastic news! :yes:

[worldlyhaligonian]

Great news!

[fenwick16]

Good news, THIS PROJECT WILL BE BUILT. Paper work is being signed as we speek by our great leaders:haha: Project will start in the spring, and there will still be public input on the look of the building. Good news for Halifax and the rest of the N.S.::cheers:

You have been right so far. This will be a major scoop for you hfxtradesman. When will it hit the news?

[hfxtradesman]

You have been right so far. This will be a major scoop for you hfxtradesman. When will it hit the news?

Everything should be done by the next public input, give or take.

[fenwick16]

Everything should be done by the next public input, give or take.

Do you mean the next HRM council meeting?

[Keety]

Where exactly is the convention centre going to be built?

[fenwick16]

Where exactly is the convention centre going to be built?

At this location - http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rf6z6r9q1w59&lvl=19.222828552941905&dir=359.6285177299032&sty=u&where1=Argyle%20St%2C%20Halifax%2C%20NS%2C%20B3J&q=argyle%20street%20halifax%20 .

The two blocks between Argyle Street, Market Street, Sackville Street and Prince Street. Grafton Steet will be kept as a pedestrian street.

[Dartboy]

I am definitely not on board with this new CC yet as they have not proved a compelling case to me. Then again the HRM and the FEDS are yet to sign off. I am now reading about the financial situations at the HRM level and that the feds will not fund some sydney work.

I would also note I find some very informative posters here. However, there are some build it and we willw orry about the costs later here as well. I find these 'LETS BUILD EVRYTHING" as bad as the phil paceys " Im against everything".

I am very concerned about the worst case scenario with this CC. This is a hotel business complex with a CC. This is not a CC. This is not a landmark of any sort. but to my conern. WHAT IF? what if the convention business stalls or declines? What if the projections are not met? What if the contractor goes under? Based on his current portfolio of projects this is HUGE for him? What if its a white elephant.

I like to think of tax investments on the same basis as other investments. IS this risk really worth the potential reward. At this point Its still a NO for me but am patiently waiting as I am more warm to the project that I was initially. MY preference is to step back to the evaulation process.

That will not happen but lets see what they hammer out for a deal

[fenwick16]

I don't think anyone wants to build everything (compared to threads in other areas of Canada, this one is quite conservation - example in wanting an economical stadium versus something elaborate). Even the convention centre is not elaborate as compared to others in Canada.

Rank Inc. is taking the financial risk in building the Nova Centre complex (including the convention centre) and is responsible for cost over-runs. This is part of the logic behind leasing instead of owning. The lease is a fixed annual dollar amount for 25 years with an option to extend the lease for up to 35 years. Factoring in inflation, in 10 years time the lease will be much easier to finance than it is now and there are no payments until 2015 so it won't be added to the HRM books in the meantime. I have now come to like the idea of leasing versus the HRM/province buying the convention centre.

[sdm]

I don't think anyone wants to build everything (compared to threads in other areas of Canada, this one is quite conservation - example in wanting an economical stadium versus something elaborate). Even the convention centre is not elaborate as compared to others in Canada.

Rank Inc. is taking the financial risk in building the Nova Centre complex (including the convention centre) and is responsible for cost over-runs. This is part of the logic behind leasing instead of owning. The lease is a fixed annual dollar amount for 25 years with an option to extend the lease for up to 35 years. Factoring in inflation, in 10 years time the lease will be much easier to finance than it is now and there are no payments until 2015 so it won't be added to the HRM books in the meantime. I have now come to like the idea of leasing versus the HRM/province buying the convention centre.

The thing that seems to be missed in all this is the operating defict. Currently HRM risk position with regards to operating defict is tied to CPI. The new proposal its whatever it is (shared between province and HRM).

This should be a concern for all as if the centre does not meet the targets quoted or if there is something that causes conventions in general to decline the city could be hit with costs that are hard to budget.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I don't think anybody in favour of this can be classified as "build anything". Everyone I have seen come out in support of this actually has a more balanced POV on development in Halifax from reading their posts in other forums. In fact, I would say the majority of us who want to see this built aren't in favour of all the low-quality, squat developments that have been the result of obstructionsim.

The financial arguments from opponents have soiled everything and the debate is just stupid at this point.

I can't forsee this being financial issue for Halifax/NS given how similar amounts of funding are dispersed to projects all the time

The fact that we built a 40 million 4 pad area which does nothing to act as a venue for any sort of trade/international event speaks volumes as to how funds are allocated for different projects and the perceptions of opponents.

The library is a similar story. Even if this development isn't financially beneficial, it has alot to do with regional pride and having a place to represent us. The current facility is substandard... I hope everybody agrees with this.

Its pretty clear to me that if this was anything but this project, there wouldn't be all this debate.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I am definitely not on board with this new CC yet as they have not proved a compelling case to me. Then again the HRM and the FEDS are yet to sign off. I am now reading about the financial situations at the HRM level and that the feds will not fund some sydney work.

I would also note I find some very informative posters here. However, there are some build it and we willw orry about the costs later here as well. I find these 'LETS BUILD EVRYTHING" as bad as the phil paceys " Im against everything".

I am very concerned about the worst case scenario with this CC. This is a hotel business complex with a CC. This is not a CC. This is not a landmark of any sort. but to my conern. WHAT IF? what if the convention business stalls or declines? What if the projections are not met? What if the contractor goes under? Based on his current portfolio of projects this is HUGE for him? What if its a white elephant.

I like to think of tax investments on the same basis as other investments. IS this risk really worth the potential reward. At this point Its still a NO for me but am patiently waiting as I am more warm to the project that I was initially. MY preference is to step back to the evaulation process.

That will not happen but lets see what they hammer out for a deal

How is it not a landmark? Look at Halifax's resume of tall buildings... I think this development will be up there with Purdy's, 1801, and the Trillium.

[DigitalNinja]

I agree, this building will be iconic in Halifax and may lead to more buildings being built in a similar style to this one to bring a new age of architecture to Halifax.

Also I think that by saying you aren't on board with this is a little silly. The final decision is up to council and our respective governments. If you are or not on board, they have the final say in anything and what anyone posts on here isn't going to matter in the slightest.

I will admit I do support a lot of projects, but they are projects which will be beneficial in a big way, Trillium, Halkirk, International place... And so on, although some of us seem to support every development, the fact is that development is needed downtown and if something like Scotia Square was proposed now, I can assure you that none of us would be in support of it or want to see it go up.

[halifaxboyns]

I'd also have to agree, I think this building will be a landmark building and considering the changes being made - I'm inclined to believe that for the most part the design is still flexible. I suspect some of the interior design may change and the towers may be tweaked.

Personally; while I disagree with STV and the HT - my 'olive branch' to them would be to pinch the towers as they get taller and make them slightly narrower to reduce the boxed in effect on the view that is protected. A small change that might give up some rooms/space but you can still sell it as something to settle that group down.

Either way; I think the fact is that both sides will agree to disagree. But I'd rather see this built that some crater in downtown.

[fenwick16]

The negotiations between the province and HRM have been very quiet - I thought that the media would be all over the story. If they have already reached an agreement, could it be that they are purposely keeping it quiet (probably a good strategy since the opposing wing nuts seem to be on the offensive.)

QUESTION: Once an agreement is reached between the HRM and province, is it necessary for the agreement to be approved by council or can the province proceed directly to negotiations with the federal government? Is any other vote on the convention centre required by council (I hope not - I wish they would just get on with it).

[sdm]

The negotiations between the province and HRM have been very quiet - I thought that the media would be all over the story. If they have already reached an agreement, could it be that they are purposely keeping it quiet (probably a good strategy since the opposing wing nuts seem to be on the offensive.)

QUESTION: Once an agreement is reached between the HRM and province, is it necessary for the agreement to be approved by council or can the province proceed directly to negotiations with the federal government? Is any other vote on the convention centre required by council (I hope not - I wish they would just get on with it).

I gather it would depend on what the conditions that council requested as part of their "ask".

[sdm]

since no one hasn't posted this article,

Centre critics fear hotel room glut
Halifax is already struggling to fill beds, says citizens group
By BRUCE ERSKINE Business Reporter
Wed, Nov 24 - 4:53 AM

A 400-room hotel proposed as part of the planned Halifax convention centre might overload the local market, says Guido Kerpel, general manager of the Westin Nova Scotian Hotel in Halifax.

"Two hundred to 300 would be more palatable," he said in an interview Tuesday.

The development plan for the former Halifax Herald Ltd. lands in downtown Halifax by Rank Inc. includes a two-level underground convention centre, an 18-storey hotel, a 14-storey officer tower and retail space.

The Coalition to Save the View, a citizens group that argues the development is a waste of taxpayer money and will block harbour views from Citadel Hill, said the planned hotel will hurt existing hotel business in Halifax.

"Even using the most optimistic trade centre projections for delegated attendance, there will still be tens of thousands of unsold hotel rooms," said coalition member Beverly Miller in an interview Tuesday.

The coalition said there are about 6,200 hotel rooms in the city now, with an average occupancy rate of 60 per cent, ranging from a high of 70-85 per cent in August and September and dropping to 40-50 per cent from December to February.

Jeff Ransome, general manager of the Marriott Halifax Harbourfront Hotel and president of the Hotel Association of Nova Scotia, didn’t dispute the coalition’s numbers. But he said the jury is still out on the ideal number of hotel rooms for the convention centre development, which the hotel association supports as good for the city and the province.

"We need a discussion on the right number of rooms to support the convention centre and not harm the hotel industry," he said. "I don’t know what that number is."

Kerpel said the convention business is up and down and he worried that empty rooms at the convention centre hotel would be discounted and drive average room prices in the city down.

"The rooms will sit in inventory and have to be sold," he said.

Discount travel company Hotwire.com reported earlier this week that Halifax hotel rates dropped eight per cent in November compared to November 2009, the highest rate drop among five Canadian cities surveyed.

Coalition member Phil Pacey, chairman of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia’s Halifax Regional Municipality committee, said Tuesday that a municipality facing a $13.9 million budget shortfall shouldn’t spend $7 million a year to subsidize the convention centre development.

The trust also opposes the development because the two towers that will only be built with public funding would block harbour views from the roadway on Citadel Hill.

Rank has said the hotel would be scaled back to a 100-room boutique facility and the financial tower won’t be built if the development doesn’t proceed as planned with government funding.

( berskine@herald.ca)

[fenwick16]

I read it. The opinion below by Jeff Ransome is the one that counts not the opinion of Phil Pacey who has no real interest in the hotel industry. These tactics just annoy me because it is clearly manipulation by Phil Pacey and his cohorts.

Jeff Ransome, general manager of the Marriott Halifax Harbourfront Hotel and president of the Hotel Association of Nova Scotia, didn’t dispute the coalition’s numbers. But he said the jury is still out on the ideal number of hotel rooms for the convention centre development, which the hotel association supports as good for the city and the province.

[someone123]

Rank isn't out to build an ideal number of hotel rooms. They're out to build as many as they think will be profitable. It's a competitive industry.

I'm also not sure that, even from an industry-wide perspective, a smaller hotel is better. The bigger ones tend to have more amenities and market more. It's easy to imagine them bringing in more visitors than the smaller hotels. Actually, 2 years ago this was the complaint from hotel owners - stop building so many small hotels since Halifax needs a bigger one. Now the Herald is finding people to complain about a larger hotel. The fact is that they can always find somebody to complain in Halifax.

In my opinion this is a case of classic Nova Scotian small town anti-business attitude and in the long run it's hurtful since it causes the province to lose out to more competitive areas. We'll keep our old, run-down, expensive hotels open until nobody bothers to come to NS and then they'll close down anyway... then everybody will shrug their shoulders and say that it's NS and it was bound to happen.

The trust also opposes the development because the two towers that will only be built with public funding would block harbour views from the roadway on Citadel Hill.

This is really misleading language.

[fenwick16]

The trust also opposes the development because the two towers that will only be built with public funding would block harbour views from the roadway on Citadel Hill.

I missed this line before. It is as though the Save the View group and Heritage Trust are leading people like sheep (or so they think).

[halifaxboyns]

I missed this line before. It is as though the Save the View group and Heritage Trust are leading people like sheep (or so they think).

No I disagree; I think it's more they are clutching at straws. There seems to be some realization (to a degree) in the no camp that with all 3 parties in the NS government behind it that the only few hurdles are getting the federal money and making sure HRM is happy.

So they are pulling out some of their 'old classic' arguments. There was a council report regarding the STV petition regarding the road, the staff member who wrote it is a good friend and as I said to her in an email; she kicked ass with it. She went right to the point that the entire view wasn't saved, just the viewpoints and viewplanes.

I see this project as a wakeup call to a degree. As I've said to some 'obstructionist' groups I've dealt with in my career, the more they see you as a group that opposte things for the sake that you don't like change, the more people ignore you. That's the case here. I don't think anyone in HRM administration takes him seriously anymore because he's not even happy with the heritage conservation district.

Just ignore those parts of the article with him in it; I think the CH only did it to appear balanced.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Pfftt, a 100 room difference is nothing when making comparisons... especially because the larger events hosted at the Nova Centre will likely consume most of the demand and likely exceed capacity.

All of this stuff in the media is really nonsense anyway, if the obstructionists think that putting out all this negative publicity will actually change the result... then they need to rethink their strategy.

[beyeas]

This is really misleading language.

Not just misleading, but flat out false, given that not a lick of public money goes to the towers.

I agree too with the comment about the fact that Rank isn't out to build an "ideal" number of rooms, but the most profitable, especially given that "ideal" in that article is in fact ideal for the Marriott. Heck, it is not like the Marriott is going to decrease the number of rooms they have to make it easier on others! Again, it would be different if it were the public's money that was going to the hotel, but it is not. The developer has the right to build as many as they see as profitable, and everyone else will just have to compete with them, much like everyone else does.

[fenwick16]

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the article. I don't like the misleading statement that was made, however having the publicly leased convention centre as part of the Nova Centre complex will make the hotel easier to finance. So having other hotel owners on board and providing support for the Nova Centre complex is in Rank Inc.'s best interests.

[someone123]

Not just misleading, but flat out false, given that not a lick of public money goes to the towers.

Well, the STV claim is that the towers could not be built "without public money" because it relies on HbD height bonuses for semi-public projects. Of course, this is different from the government handing over money to a developer, but that is how people might interpret the article.

If obstruction of views is considered a "subsidy" then every building that has gone up anywhere has been "subsidized". The fact is that this allowance works in favour of the government - they can use increased height as an incentive to get better deals than would otherwise be possible.

STV has it backwards, which I guess is unsurprising, and the Herald article misrepresents the situation to the average reader who has no idea about any of this. They've done an atrocious job of informing the public, as usual. They might as well just give a column to Phil Pacey.

[fenwick16]

I just wasted several minutes of my life reading the garbage that you just posted sdm. The plan of using those two blocks wasn't hatched as a secret plot in 2008; it was included as a possible location in the report that was completed in May 2007 by WHW Architects - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Feasibility-Study-Vol-1.pdf . Refer to page 41/314 of the pdf file.

The report is on the WTCC website - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/documents/studies/ . It has been there for several months now. I have absolutely no respect for Tim Bousquet - what type of person publishes such garbage.

[someone123]

Now that Tim Bousquet has written his grand opus, does this mean that we can move on?

[fenwick16]

Tim Bousquet has a real talent for writing fiction. I think he is in the wrong business, he should be writing novels.

[sdm]

Tim Bousquet has a real talent for writing fiction. I think he is in the wrong business, he should be writing novels.

to be honest, he has a number of facts that are not fiction, but absolute truth.

for your information, Rank closed on the property in feb. 2007 and can be confirmed by the Deed on registered on the property.

[fenwick16]

to be honest, he has a number of facts that are not fiction, but absolute truth.

for your information, Rank closed on the property in feb. 2007 and can be confirmed by the Deed on registered on the property.

So..? Rank Inc. is a private corporation that bought land for the purpose of development. An architectural company (WHW Architects) considered this to be a good location for a convention centre and Rank Inc. submitted a proposal which was actually based on this WHW Architects report - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Feasibility-Study-Vol-1.pdf .

PS: The most obvious fact against this being a conspiracy is that the proposal was ratified by a political party (the NDP), after many months of scrutiny, and they had no involvement in the initial deal (signed by the conservatives).

[halifaxboyns]

I have to agree with Fenwick here - I don't really see what the point of the article was? If Rank hadn't have applied for the RFP it could've been someone else.

Plus the fact that governments offer businesses incentives to move here is no surprise at all; that's called economic development. Look at the call centres and other industries, like Daewoo. The NS government offered them tax breaks and pay roll incentives - no different here. And I'm sure they were shopping around for the best deal - why not? Let's face it; a company has to be able to make money while being here, other wise who cares how much a government offers to move offices to HRM? They would just close them done once the tax incentives were gone, because they didn't make money - which is a waste of economic development money.

HRM can still be an international finance centre; I think Ramia has proven that point with the fact more major US firms are looking for office space in lesser known cities as a matter of security. Just last week several applications came in for offices from several major US firms here in Calgary - I can't say which ones, but they were mainly backup offices for their major US locations.

[someone123]

Rank Inc. is a private corporation that bought land for the purpose of development.

This part is already sketchy to about 60% of the readership of the Coast. To be honest, I don't think you will be changing any minds there. A lot of people just don't understand convention centres, don't like private businesses, and don't want buildings that change the city.

They don't understand that the cultural amenities they want are only minor economic generators in many cases and depend on other economic activity. The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

[beyeas]

The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

AWESOME analogy. :worship: I will have to remember that one! Laughed my ASS off when I read it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This part is already sketchy to about 60% of the readership of the Coast. To be honest, I don't think you will be changing any minds there. A lot of people just don't understand convention centres, don't like private businesses, and don't want buildings that change the city.

They don't understand that the cultural amenities they want are only minor economic generators in many cases and depend on other economic activity. The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this! Great analogy.

Its a pervasive anti-business attitude from their readership... unless its one of the private companies that they support.

[halifaxboyns]

The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

I literally fell out of my chair laughing, because it reminded me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRmN4KnfPxQ).

[fenwick16]

I think the comment below is quite typical of some people's attitudes. And the person who posted the comment (John Wesley Chisholm) makes documentaries which are probably subsidized though taxpayers dollars (is he worried that there might be fewer dollars available for producing his documentaries?)

(source: http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-convention-centre-tower-play/Content?oid=2027217 )
Thank you Tim and The Coast for this work. It's appreciated today and will become a valuable record for the future.

It's very interesting to note that every step of the way through this timline we were told that "it had to be done" or "Halifax is dying" and that we need "Economic Growth"; while through each and every month Stats Can produced and published statistics that clearly show Halifax and Nova Scotia are growing at a very good rate, even through the recessionary period when other cities were losing ground. Even as this Coast article is printed, this week's Stats Can figures continue the theme.

Non-farm jobs in Nova Scotia are up 2.7% for the year ended September 30, outpacing all other Atlantic provinces and the North American average. Average weekly earnings in Nova Scotia are up 3.2% for the same period.

So the point that has driven the convention centre idea is pointless. We wouldn't want our economy or to grow any faster than it is and there is no rational reason to believe government spending on this "scraps form the table" trickle down scheme could make it happen even if we did.

One thing is certain. Government spending on this project is our tax dollars NOT spent on the basic services, investments and policies we all expect from our government. It's a zero sum game that moves public wealth to private pockets and that is not what Economic Growth means.

[CorbeauNoir]

I think the comment below is quite typical of some people's attitudes. And the person who posted the comment (John Wesley Chisholm) makes documentaries which are probably subsidized though taxpayers dollars (is he worried that there might be fewer dollars available for producing his documentaries?)

(source: http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-convention-centre-tower-play/Content?oid=2027217 )

That line really jumped out at me, too. I said it in the article comments as well, but leave it to Halifax to whine and freak out about growth. :gaah:

I'm studying architecture at Dal but I wouldn't want to touch a practice in this city with a ten-mile pole. Being an architect or an urban planner in Halifax must be the most soul-sucking job ever. Some of the comments I come across here make me want to pull my hair out in fustration, I can only imagine what the actual architects must feel.

[halifaxboyns]

That line really jumped out at me, too. I said it in the article comments as well, but leave it to Halifax to whine and freak out about growth. :gaah:

I'm studying architecture at Dal but I wouldn't want to touch a practice in this city with a ten-mile pole. Being an architect or an urban planner in Halifax must be the most soul-sucking job ever. Some of the comments I come across here make me want to pull my hair out in fustration, I can only imagine what the actual architects must feel.

It's not greener in another garden, trust me. I'll be in planning for 8 years in a few more months - most of my time has been out here in Calgary and we get it out here too (if you can believe it).

I've been enjoying the BS that the Save the view facebook has been posting. Apparently students at DAL are upset that money would be spent on this versus education. As much as I'm tempted to say why aren't they upset over money for roads, hospitals and anything else, I've decided to just ignore it. They are grasping, as is Tim and the whole anti-project crowd. I'm convinced thanks to Fenwick's economic analysis that even at the worst case; this would be a money neutral thing. But I am taking a positive position and I think this will be a good thing. It's certainly better than the whole in the ground there now!

[CorbeauNoir]

Things actually get BUILT in Calgary, though. I grew up there and if anything even close to what goes on in Halifax happens there at least it's done quietly. Could you imagine if there was a Save The Calgary Tower special-interest group running around filled with people with nothing better to do than fight tooth and nail against any development that rivaled the Tower's height? And that every time they did it made front-page news in the local papers and sparked weeks upon weeks of endless bickering back and forth in the editorial letters? Hell, I'm almost certain that the Bow has been orientated with the express intent of blocking off as much of the Tower's view as possible without anyone noticing :lol:

It's just so goddamn frustrating. Halifax has a fantastic Britain-meets-North-America feel to it but the charm of it comes from the fact that it's been allowed to evolve that way naturally in a way I've never really seen anywhere else (as opposed to something like Quebec City which, while beautiful, feels somewhat artificial since it's essentially been frozen in time). Using the old-world tourist sites to keep city development hostage stifles that unique evolution.

But I am taking a positive position and I think this will be a good thing. It's certainly better than the whole in the ground there now!

That's the other thing, not once have I heard of an alternate suggestion for the site from the anti-CC crowd. Tons of bickering about how the money could be put to better use but never any kind of actual alternative proposal.

It never, ever fails to blow my mind how people freak out about Barrington St as if it's downtown Detroit but apparently are hellbent on maintaining a gaping, crumbling hole in the center of the region's largest entertainment district rather than the NC.

[fenwick16]

I've been enjoying the BS that the Save the view facebook has been posting. Apparently students at DAL are upset that money would be spent on this versus education. As much as I'm tempted to say why aren't they upset over money for roads, hospitals and anything else, I've decided to just ignore it. They are grasping, as is Tim and the whole anti-project crowd. I'm convinced thanks to Fenwick's economic analysis that even at the worst case; this would be a money neutral thing. But I am taking a positive position and I think this will be a good thing. It's certainly better than the whole in the ground there now!

Thanks halifaxboyns, however, I wouldn't call my opinions an economic analysis. My gut feeling based on a bit of basic research is that the new convention centre will work out in Halifax's favour in the coming years. (I feel that Halifax will be a very desirable location for national conventions - as it has been in the past).

Phil Pacey was reportedly handing out flyers regarding the convention centre on the Dalhousie University campus (a few weeks ago) - probably stating that the convention centre will decrease money for education (or something along those lines). Thus the reaction from Dalhousie University students; otherwise the majority of these students would hardly notice a proposal for a convention centre complex.

Dalhousie University seems to be a hotbed of convention centre opposition. Didn't a couple of architecture professors also write negative commentaries in the Chronicle Herald?

[Keith P.]

Chisholm is a good example of the left-wing chocolate cake eaters described earlier. He is a blowhard who considered himself an expert on everything, but fortunately, like most of the noisy left-wing artsy types, has very little real influence. Still, he is annoying with his constant proclamations of how he knows best, regardless of the development issue.

It was encouraging to hear the Premier speak to the Chamber of Commerce this week and state:

"We can’t be satisfied with the fading achievements of years ago. This government and this province needs to look to the future.

That is one reason I saw that a new convention centre, at the heart of a much larger development, is a major positive change for this city and for our province. I am not satisfied when Halifax is unable to host major national conventions because an old facility has fallen behind those elsewhere in Canada – despite its hard working staff and supporters.

The province took the time to look at the business case, in detail. That’s our responsibility. If it is not a good deal for Nova Scotia, we have no business in the deal.

We understand that in order to make the province stronger, we need to strengthen the parts, and we actively seek opportunities to do just that.

A new convention centre will be an asset for the province, and a great asset for this city. It can symbolize a positive turning point in our growth and ambition. I want a partnership that works, so this project can proceed. I want an equal partnership. I know that the value of this centre to HRM justifies the city assuming a 50 per cent share of responsibility and benefits. I want to move forward on that basis."


People like Bousquet and Chisholm and the rest of their anti-development cheerleading section need to move on.

[MonctonRad]

I think the Nova Centre project is something that the entire Maritime region can get behind.

Although there are new convention centres being built in Fredericton (almost ready) and Charlottetown (shovels hitting the ground next year) and there may be a convention component to whatever downtown entertainment /arena complex that may eventually get built in Moncton, there is no question that these facilities will pale in comparison to the Nova Centre, which will be built to attract major conventions of national and international stature. As such, I do not anticipate tremendous competition for business between the Nova Centre and the other facilities elsewhere in the region.

The Nova Centre will be able to introduce many people to the pleasures of Atlantic Canada and may end up boosting tourism throughout the region. I think it will end up benefitting everyone.

The Nova Centre will be an economic generator which will boost business and thus the regional tax base so that we can pay for the hospitals and universities (and chocolate cake) that Bousquet and Pacey "care" so much about.

I work in the health care sector and I realize how my bread gets buttered.

Let's git'er done Halifax. :tup:

[Waye Mason]

Anyone know when the designs are going to the review committee? When will we see actual real artist renderings and real elevations?

[fenwick16]

It is hard to say when it will go before the design committee - probably not until the federal government has committed funds to the convention centre.

A lot has been released regarding the design. This following document has floor plans showing room numbers, square footage, stairways, elevators, loading bays - essentially the entire convention centre layout on 8 levels - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf .

The rendering below looks quite detailed. However, Rank Inc. has indicated that the exterior can change after public consultations - so it has not been finalized. The public consultations can proceed as excavation proceeds - if it goes ahead.

http://www.novacentre.ca/rankinc/image3.jpg

The illustration below shows elevations and also shows how the Grafton Street Pedway/Ballroom Ceiling is supported with arches (this is part of the structure). This illustration was copied from this report - http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/site-tcl/media/tradecentrelimited/Deloitte%20Report.pdf - note that the image is cropped to make the numbers easier to read (it doesn't show the full height of the towers - but you can see them in the report).

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1554/conventioncentrefullh.jpg

The Rank Inc. website has other elevations, but some are of the old design - http://www.novacentre.ca/

PS: $21 million of the $140 million estimated construction cost of the convention centre is for engineering design. Thus I don't think that the detailed design will be finalized until excavation is well underway - I can't imagine that much money being spent without a signed agreement from the 3 levels of government.

[Waye Mason]

I've seen those, they are a vast improvement over the first set of ugly pictures, but I can see 3-4 challenges to the design requirements in HRMbD just in a quick look at them. My understanding as a further refinement was going to be produced with significant changes.

Do we like the covered street/pedestrian walkway? I don't know, it could be amazing, or it could end up dirty, cold and underused.

I like the overall glass design, this was what excited me about Twisted Sisters.

[fenwick16]

I've seen those, they are a vast improvement over the first set of ugly pictures, but I can see 3-4 challenges to the design requirements in HRMbD just in a quick look at them. My understanding as a further refinement was going to be produced with significant changes.

Do we like the covered street/pedestrian walkway? I don't know, it could be amazing, or it could end up dirty, cold and underused.

I like the overall glass design, this was what excited me about Twisted Sisters.

The details of the convention centre were finalized prior to the HRM by Design (DHLUB - 2009). Thus the sections below are specifically included in the DHLUB regarding the convention centre complex: (source: http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf )

Publically-Sponsored Convention Centre
(15A) Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law except subsections (14) through (17) of section 8, a publically-sponsored convention centre together with retail, hotel, residential or office, and underground parking space, may be developed on the two blocks bounded by Argyle Street, Prince Street, Market Street and Sackville Street in accordance with the drawings attached as Appendix "B" to thisBy-law. For the purposes of this subsection, “publically-sponsored convention centre” means an establishment funded or otherwise financially supported by any or all levels of government which is used for the holding of conventions, seminars, workshops, trade shows, meetings or similar activities, and which may include dining and lodging facilities for the use of the participants as well as other compatible accessory facilities.

(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual.

subsections (14) through (17) of section 8 are the criteria listed:


View Plane Requirements
(14) Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law, no building shall be erected, constructed, altered, reconstructed, or located in any zone so as to protrude
through a View Plane except as permitted pursuant to Section 24 of the Halifax Peninsula Land Use By-law, as amended from time to time.
(15) Any permit issued by the Development Officer pursuant to plans and data presented by the applicant shall not, at any time, be deemed to be permission to
protrude through a View Plane.
(16) No building shall be constructed so that it is parallel to a view plane, unless such view plane is parallel to a street line.

Rampart Requirements

(17) Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law, no building shall be erected, constructed, altered, reconstructed, or located in any zone so as to be visible above the ramparts as specified by Section 26B of the Halifax Peninsula Land Use Bylaw, as amended from time to time.

So the convention centre complex must simply meet the viewplane requirements. PS (added): I should have stated that the exterior must be approved by the Design Review Committee.

[someone123]

Do we like the covered street/pedestrian walkway? I don't know, it could be amazing, or it could end up dirty, cold and underused.

I think it mostly comes down to how public it feels and how well it is connected to the rest of the development. If it feels like a private mall and has inward-facing businesses for convention goers it will be a failure and people will avoid it in favour of Argyle (this is the problem with places like Scotia Square). If it has stuff like good late-night restaurants people will go there - it needs to be part of the "night life" district.

It also needs good lighting at night, seating, and displays to make it a safe, comfortable, and interesting place to be at all hours. If it's executed successfully it would be something new in the downtown.

There was some discussion of the Seattle convention centre a while ago in this thread. The design is very similar to this, although the canopy there covers a hilly street. It is a little darker because it has pedways over parts. It also seems like more of a "transient" street on the beaten path for some pedestrians while this block of Grafton is only one possibility in an area where people tend to hang around. Market, one block up, is totally dead. There's no reason for people to pass through those streets unless they are visiting a business on them (unlike, say, Spring Garden Road, which gets a ton of traffic as a gateway to the downtown).

[someone123]

Here's the Seattle covered area, clearly an inspiration for the Nova Centre design:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8k9hxOwsNDA/SkGv53CHv0I/AAAAAAAAEzU/NH-S2AEIfT4/IMG_2894.jpg
Source (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/GgCx7Af4RCr1bTZ72Dxz1w)

I thought it looked kind of cool when I was there but it is a little dated since it was built in 1988 (though I'm guessing it's been renovated somewhat).

Another interesting fact about Seattle's convention centre is that it was built over part of I-5. Major buildings could similarly be built over roads in downtown Halifax when redeveloping the Cogswell Interchange.

Seattle actually reminds me a lot of Halifax, although it is larger and newer. I know a few people from there who've been to Halifax and they said the sample thing. The setting is very similar - small hills and blocks. There are also some cultural similarities and it rains there all the time.

[Keith P.]

Seattle actually reminds me a lot of Halifax, although it is larger and newer. I know a few people from there who've been to Halifax and they said the sample thing. The setting is very similar - small hills and blocks. There are also some cultural similarities and it rains there all the time.

Seattle is one of the few big American cities I feel at home visiting. It's like what Halifax could be if we ever grow up.

[fenwick16]

If only Halifax had of reached its potential. If the Halifax explosion hadn't occurred, would Halifax be significantly larger now (maybe a metro population of 600,000)? The explosion occurred at a time when Halifax was booming (no pun intended). Other cities continued to boom after WWI, did the explosion slow Halifax down?

[Waye Mason]

So the convention centre complex must simply meet the viewplane requirements.

But you quoted this:

"(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual."

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

[someone123]

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

What would you change specifically? I think that there could be a lot of improvements made to the design but the design manual isn't particularly clear about what should change. There are some contradictions in HbD (e.g. this site is supposed to be "lowrise" or "midrise" but this height is permitted - another great one is how on one page they show a picture of Freak Lunchbox and talk about how great it is, then on another page they complain about the colours) and a lot of the requirements are subjective.

[fenwick16]

But you quoted this:

"(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual."

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

Could you specify what does not apply? Section 7 subsection 15(A) refers to drawings in Appendix A - page 61/62 of this document - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/DowntownHalifax_LUB.pdf . It certainly looks like the Nova Centre design. So I guess the manual is referring to items such as exterior cladding. I don't think that step back requirements apply to the Nova Centre. The manual shows a fairly detailed drawing that doesn't indicate any step back requirements to the hotel or office. Which is fine with me, since one of my favorite Halifax buildings is 1801 Hollis Street. I just wish that the Nova Centre hotel were 30 storeys tall (straight up) and that there were a 600 foot observation tower in downtown Halifax.

[halifaxboyns]

I have to say; after reading some of the downtown LUB - wow, that's really complex wording. Not that the Calgary LUB is any better; since I'm working on changes to the sign component; that section is all lawyer speak but Calgary's LUB has much different wording than this so it took me a few reads to understand it.

From reading the Bylaw, I don't believe that only the viewplanes are the only rules to apply here. In order to interpret the Bylaw; you need to look at each section as it's written. I think Fenwick, you've done a pretty good job, but where you may have missed something - is the actual site planning section.

So 15B says that the application must go to the design committee, but the catch is that they must look at the applications qualitative elements. BUT subsection 6 of part 5 applies; which is this: "Where a proposed development requires a relaxation of the requirements of this By-law, the applicant shall provide a written proposal explaining the rationale for the request based on the applicable criteria contained in the Design Manual."

So the way I'm reading it is: Yes, the application goes to the design review committee. No, it isn't exempt from the design manual guidelines for things like streetwalls, etc BUT the applicant can submit a letter rationalizing a variance to those requirements; which can then be approved with the DP by the Development Officer.

The other issue I'd have, which I think HRM's lawyers have probably thought about is the fact that appendix II contains the 'site plan' for the convention centre. It's been my experience that when any diagrams are adopted with an LUB (such as a map or diagram), any variation from that requires council's approval because the diagram/map forms part of the bylaw. Now in HRM's case, perhaps making it as an appendix deviates from that rule (meaning that it's not hard and fast to that diagram). But if that's not the case, then the bylaw may have to be amended to change the diagram in order to vary the design. The reason I worry about that is that I didn't see anything in the diagram that said 'for illustration purposes only'.

I'm hopeful that when this was being reviewed prior to public hearing - that was taken into account and I'm sure I'm worrying for nothing though.

[fenwick16]

I won't pretend that that I understand this fully (maybe I don't understand it at all). Here is section 7 subsection 15 b)

(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual.

Below is the section of the Design Manual that includes 1.1 b).

(source: page 65/141 of this pdf file - http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf )
1.1
Purpose of the Design Manual
The Design Manual is to be the primary reference used during the design review component of the Site Plan Approval process for downtown Halifax development applications.

Site Plan Approval is a development approval process enabled under the HRM Charter that brings improved clarity, predictability and timeliness to development approvals. Under Site Plan Approval, the approval of any development application will proceed in two parts:

a. The quantitative elements of an application (maximum height, setbacks, stepbacks, lot coverage, etc.) are subject to approval based on the prescriptive criteria in the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law. This will enable an applicant to understand exactly how much development is possible before the application is submitted. This part of the approval is not subject to the Design Manual.

b. The qualitative elements of an application (architectural design, streetscape presence, public realm contribution, sustainability, etc.) are subject to a discretionary approval resulting from a design review process. It is this discretionary process for which the Design Manual is intended. Additionally, the Design Manual contains criteria by which modest modifications to the quantitative elements of the Land Use By-law may be made through the design review process.

Since it must only meet the qualitative requirements in 1.1 b) of the Design Manual (as stated in section 7 subsection 15 b) ) it therefore must be exempt from 1.1 a) which are the quantitative elements that include setbacks and stepbacks. As stated above in 1.1 a) - "This part of the approval is not subject to the Design Manual." which to me means that the setbacks and stepbacks of the Nova Centre are not subject to the Design Manual (since approval of the quantitative elements are not required). I may misunderstand this, but I take this to mean that the massing of the buildings has already been approved (quantitative elements in 1.1 a) ). I also take it to mean (and this is what might be in error on my part) that 1.1 b) gives the developer and Design Review committee some leeway in making changes to the design based on streetscape presence and that the exterior design (for example, cladding) must be approved.

I won't pretend that what I have stated is the law - it is just how I interpreted it.

[Keith P.]

This is a good example of why, to paraphrase Will Shakespeare, "The first thing we do is, let's shoot all the planners." :P

[Waye Mason]

I am not an expert in this, and really, no one is an expert on this particular set of rules, as the ink is still wet on the bylaws and no one has really taken it for a rigorous test drive yet.

My imperfect understanding was that the setback still needs to happen, and that street level integration is critical, etc, etc. I look at the current rendering, and I see a lot of big blank concrete walls, especially on the angle between Grafton and Argyle, and along the south end of the street level with Argyle.

I mean, the arts conceptions we were shown before I think are significantly different from the current clear glass model. We saw significant improvement, can't we hope for more? I would like to see really high end street level integration across from the Carleton/Shoe Shop so that really solidifies that part of the restaurant bar district.

Its not a drop dead requirement, as the area did fine with the ugly old dead at street level Herald building there, but it would be nice.

I also want to make sure that the Market St side does not become the "back" of the building, it should still be decent design. I don't want any more designers deciding that a former lively street is now going to be a dead to people alley.

[Empire]

But you quoted this:

"(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual."

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

It will be interesting to see how stringent the Design Review Committee is when it comes to the big show. Qualitative issues on a project like the cc will be very much subject to interpretation by the committee members. The cladding on the Nova Centre has already been changed from a design perspective so the likelihood of the DRC objecting is probably quite low. Furthermore, this committee was conceived to streamline major developments and to come out of the gate being obstructionist will not sit well with their creators. Also, it could be argued that the second level outdoor mezzanine provides the street presence on Arglye that the parking garage entrance eliminates.

[halifaxboyns]

Actually I think fenwick is onto how it seems to be logically interpretted - so I think your right. I missed that part; shows you how well I read it.

I also think that empire is on to things. It will be interesting to see how it moves forward. I think the design can only get better.

[someone123]

I also think that empire is on to things. It will be interesting to see how it moves forward. I think the design can only get better.

I would love to see the debate move forward to the point where people make real suggestions to improve the building.

[fenwick16]

I think it looks great as it is. The only thing that I can think of, is what Waye Mason mentioned, add retail (possibly restaurant space) along Argyle and Market streets.

[Keith P.]

I am concerned about this design review committee. According to the HRM website it consists of:

Bill Hyde
Terry Smith-Lamothe
Ramzi Kawar
Anne Sinclair
Nick Pryce
Sue Sirrs
Angela Dean
Roy McBride
Cesar Saleh
Alan Parish
Jeff Pinhey
Suzanne Saul

Who are these people? I believe Cesar Saleh works for one of the big development firms, and I think Suzanne Saul owns the Attica store. But isn't Alan Parish a Heritage Trust/STV type? And the Pinhey character has written a piece on his blog (http://maritimedrinker.blogspot.com/) naively agreeing with Bousquet of the Coast and his campaign to torpedo the project. It troubles me having unelected types with zero accountability having a say in things like this.

[Empire]

I am concerned about this design review committee. According to the HRM website it consists of:

Bill Hyde
Terry Smith-Lamothe
Ramzi Kawar
Anne Sinclair
Nick Pryce
Sue Sirrs
Angela Dean
Roy McBride
Cesar Saleh
Alan Parish
Jeff Pinhey
Suzanne Saul

Who are these people? I believe Cesar Saleh works for one of the big development firms, and I think Suzanne Saul owns the Attica store. But isn't Alan Parish a Heritage Trust/STV type? And the Pinhey character has written a piece on his blog (http://maritimedrinker.blogspot.com/) naively agreeing with Bousquet of the Coast and his campaign to torpedo the project. It troubles me having unelected types with zero accountability having a say in things like this.

This committee is the brainchild of Andy Fillmore of HRMxD. I think the group is very fragmented and the Nova Centre debate will bring it all to light.

[someone123]

This committee is the brainchild of Andy Fillmore of HRMxD. I think the group is very fragmented and the Nova Centre debate will bring it all to light.

I am a little concerned about how this group will function. Theoretically they are not there to comment on issues like whether the convention centre should be funded or go on the waterfront or whatever. They're there to evaluate the qualitative design requirements. If not, I guess we'll just have the old system where everything is appealed to the URB and then usually approved.

At the end of the day though there will always be this difficult question of how to evaluate proposals. I prefer a more codified approach where the politics are dealt with up front and the individual approvals are perfunctory, like as-of-right development.

[halifaxboyns]

I am a little concerned about how this group will function. Theoretically they are not there to comment on issues like whether the convention centre should be funded or go on the waterfront or whatever. They're there to evaluate the qualitative design requirements. If not, I guess we'll just have the old system where everything is appealed to the URB and then usually approved.

At the end of the day though there will always be this difficult question of how to evaluate proposals. I prefer a more codified approach where the politics are dealt with up front and the individual approvals are perfunctory, like as-of-right development.

Well if the Nova Scotia government see's things being a real issue; the could be like the Alberta government was with the Saddledome. When it was being proposed, many Victoria Park residents began asserting that they would do everything they could within the development process to stop it. So the government decided to change the legislation and exempted the site from requiring any planning approvals at a Municipal Level. They advertised the changes and before anyone could react, the bill had been given 3rd reading so there was nothing that could be done.

I don't suspect the NDP has the balls for that - but they could do it. Would be an interesting legislative session for sure!

The committee will have to give comments on the qualitative issues; not the background like funding. But as I read in the Bylaw; they only give recommendations to the development officer - he's not bound by them. I know the Development Officers for the Halifax side; they aren't unreasonable.

I believe Keith is right about who he's mentioned - I don't know the rest of the list. If this were Calgary; the Planning Commission would be the approving authority but the issue of how the project is funded wouldn't be on the table. I think the design is pretty good - I thought I had seen a rendering with commercial on argyle, but I might be mistaken. That to me is very important.

[Jstaleness]

I think it looks great as it is. The only thing that I can think of, is what Waye Mason mentioned, add retail (possibly restaurant space) along Argyle and Market streets.

Sure would be nice to see the Midtown come back there.

[halifaxboyns]

Sure would be nice to see the Midtown come back there.

I had a couple bad experiences at the midtown - don't care for it. My main concern is getting some commercial on the Argyle street side, as much as possible. I find it interesting that the main focus would be on Market street, but then again they didn't own the buildings below Argyle so what can you do. Just find it funny because Market really has very little street pressence in that area. That will change once this is built though!

[fenwick16]

PS: There isn't any news in the post below - has anyone heard any news or rumours?

I just wanted to post an image of the new Ottawa Convention Centre by O-Town Hockey at this following thread - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124156&page=77

(source: O-Town Hockey)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1074/5153226170_6632a469d5_b.jpg

The new Ottawa Convention Centre looks more impressive than the old Nova Centre design. However, I think the new Nova Centre design below compares very favourably with the new Ottawa Convention Centre - I actually prefer the Nova Centre: PS: The Nova Centre convention centre has about the same gross square feet in spite of reports by the Save the View group otherwise.

It looks like the Ottawa Centre has little or no street level retail (this is another advantage of the Nova Centre design). One big advantage that the Ottawa Centre has - it is already built.

(Source: http://www.novacentre.ca/ )
http://www.novacentre.ca/rankinc/image3.jpg

[someone123]

I don't think the Ottawa convention centre is that great. It was just put on a pedestal by people like Tim Bousquet who are against the Nova Centre to begin with.

Can you imagine actually putting a structure like that on the waterfront?

I much prefer a new mixed-use building with offices, hotel, and retail space to a giant single-purpose box.

[isaidso]

I'm rarely impressed by anything commercial that gets built in Halifax, but this one is gorgeous. It's modern, has the right scale and proportions for Halifax, and really plays upon the hilly terrain better than any other building in the city. The covered street is fabulous! If that curtain wall ends up as glossy and reflective as it looks in the render, this building will be a huge asset to the City of Halifax.

[sdm]

I'm rarely impressed by anything commercial that gets built in Halifax, but this one is gorgeous. It's modern, has the right scale and proportions for Halifax, and really plays upon the hilly terrain better than any other building in the city. The covered street is fabulous! If that curtain wall ends up as glossy and reflective as it looks in the render, this building will be a huge asset to the City of Halifax.

I believe the HRM by design manual states glossy reflective glass is not permitted?

[eastcoastal]

I am concerned about this design review committee. According to the HRM website it consists of:

Bill Hyde
Terry Smith-Lamothe
Ramzi Kawar
Anne Sinclair
Nick Pryce
Sue Sirrs
Angela Dean
Roy McBride
Cesar Saleh
Alan Parish
Jeff Pinhey
Suzanne Saul

Who are these people? I believe Cesar Saleh works for one of the big development firms, and I think Suzanne Saul owns the Attica store. But isn't Alan Parish a Heritage Trust/STV type? And the Pinhey character has written a piece on his blog (http://maritimedrinker.blogspot.com/) naively agreeing with Bousquet of the Coast and his campaign to torpedo the project. It troubles me having unelected types with zero accountability having a say in things like this.
Bill Hyde is a retired architect (formerly on the Urban Design Taskforce), Terry Smith-Lamothe is an architect, Anne Sinclair - architect, Sue Sirrs - landscape architect specializing in green (enviro stuff)... she did the living wall at the newest building for NS Community College in Dartmouth, Angela Dean is a landscape architect, Cesar Saleh is an engineer developer I think, Alan Parish is a former Heritage Trust president... but I think he's rather moderate - Kate Carmichael's (former advocate for the downtown, and the person Carmichael Street and the Carmichael Lectures are named after) widower, Jeff Pinhey is a Civil Engineer.

It will be interesting to see how they act - they are not supposed to comment on the whys of a project... just how it conforms to the HbD design guidelines. Height is not supposed to be an issue... just the "qualitative" aspects of the design. Height is supposed to be settled before it ever reaches them.

I don't know how to make them accountable, but as for being unelected... I'm not sure that anyone elected has the knowledge required to evaluate design appropriately - the committee is made up of design professionals (with some members of the public to provide "transparency") who are supposed to have taken professional oaths to serve the public interests. Think about who we have elected to council and tell me that you believe they'd be better judges of design...

[phrenic]

This is one of those cases where I'd much rather take my chances with unelected professionals than with elected folks who don't know what they're talking about.

It's not as though there would be any true "accountability" for the decisions of elected officials on this anyway. People just like to throw that word around when they don't like how the process has taken shape.

[fenwick16]

I believe the HRM by design manual states glossy reflective glass is not permitted?

The following statement is in the Design Manual about glass tinting: - page 21/80 of the pdf file (manual page 18) - "Darkly tinted or mirrored glass is prohibited.
Clear glass is preferrable to light tints. Glare reduction coatings are preferred." So I think that the glass in the Nova Centre rendering (above) would be acceptable according to the manual.

This is to avoid bird strikes.

[phrenic]

Maybe birds just want to attend all of these conventions we're supposed to get.

[JET]

I am concerned about this design review committee. According to the HRM website it consists of:

Bill Hyde
Terry Smith-Lamothe
Ramzi Kawar
Anne Sinclair
Nick Pryce
Sue Sirrs
Angela Dean
Roy McBride
Cesar Saleh
Alan Parish
Jeff Pinhey
Suzanne Saul

Who are these people? I believe Cesar Saleh works for one of the big development firms, and I think Suzanne Saul owns the Attica store. But isn't Alan Parish a Heritage Trust/STV type? And the Pinhey character has written a piece on his blog (http://maritimedrinker.blogspot.com/) naively agreeing with Bousquet of the Coast and his campaign to torpedo the project. It troubles me having unelected types with zero accountability having a say in things like this.

Terry Smith-Lamothe is an architect and taught at NSCAD; stained glass design, he has done some very nice stuff.

[FuzzyWuz]

Anybody see the Coast letters section? Wayne Anstey refutes point after point in TB's article with numbers and references and citations etc. The letter is more than a page long. I noticed also that TB didn't write the standard "I stand by my story." reply. The hilarious kicker is that Alan Ruffman is the next letter writer. His note says, "What a fine piece of investigative journalism."

lol.

[fenwick16]

Anybody see the Coast letters section? Wayne Anstey refutes point after point in TB's article with numbers and references and citations etc. The letter is more than a page long. I noticed also that TB didn't write the standard "I stand by my story." reply. The hilarious kicker is that Alan Ruffman is the next letter writer. His note says, "What a fine piece of investigative journalism."

lol.

I am interested in reading the letter but I haven't been able to find it - could you provide a link?

[Keith P.]

Apparently they have not put it up on the website. Really, Bousquet is a big liability for that publication, not just for his opinionated faux-journalism, but for the outright falsehoods he likes to pass off as facts.