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

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 12:58 AM

I see a lot of pro CC folks.

so I amused myself on the lease idea, Class a office space is what $20/sq ft/yr - combined wh/office in burnside $10 or $12.

Lets ignore the $47 million upfront by the feds

$13,000,000 per year 120,000 square feet. Over $100 per square foot lease -
I need to see a lot more details. WE have a lot of other space and another new waterfront hotel coming and guess what a lot of conventions go to the hotels.

This does not pass the sniff test. 1,200 jobs most of which are min wage. Just doesnt do it for me spinoffs or not

The hotels and downtown businesses want the convention centre. Also the convention centre will have 309,000 square feet gross and part of the cost will be covered by the federal government (if not then I assume the NDP won't proceed). So the provincial and municipal government are paying the amount of $325 million dollars/25 years/309,000 square feet gross = $42.07 per square foot. Certainly it is not cheap but not as high as your numbers. EDITED: If the province and municipality pay over a period of 3 - 4 years during construction then the cost will only be ($46.7 million x 2 levels of government)/309,000 square feet/25 years = $12.09/square-foot for the province and HRM combined - this is similar to the Burnside rate that you quoted for Class A office space (on top of this there are maintenance charges as there would be with an office or industrial lease) However, they will be paying it in advance, so once it is built they will only have annual maintenance and facility upgrade charges. I think they should pay as construction proceeds - this will be the cheapest option. Then without the annual amortization payments the HRM and province will likely make money on the direct rental of the facility which can go towards the provincial debt.

The province should look at all possible ways to get the cost down but rejecting the convention centre would be a poor business choice since it will mean rejecting a strength of the province - the tourism sector. It will also show the rest of Canada and Halifax area businesses that the province is anti-development. Whoever opposes the convention centre should be able to come up with a better way of generating money for the residents of Nova Scotia. Otherwise their arguments are pointless.

sdm

Oct 14, 2010, 1:23 AM

If you look at the floor plans on the site of convention centre information it appears Trade Centre Limited is being provided office space in the office tower.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 1:24 AM

yeah with a mortgage on a house you get to own it at the end. This developer won a sweet deal.

The developer didn't put a gun to the province's head. The province didn't want to pay anything until after the next election and that is why the province chose this deal. If you feel so strongly against the deal that the province is making then why not state that you prefer for the province to finance the convention centre the way that most provinces do - with incremental payments. You could also ask why the province doesn't want to own the convention centre when it is complete? (if the CTV source is accurate - it might not be)

Nova Scotia was once a prosperous province; a couple of Canada's largest banks started in Halifax. The province needs to think of legitimate ways to generate additional revenue - making money off its scenery it a good choice. If the province stands up to these anti-development groups then it will be a good step forward towards provincial self-sufficiency.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 1:41 AM

i found this article and comments interesting as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/atlantic/halifax-asked-to-gamble-on-taxpayer-funded-convention-centre/article1746537/comments/

Why would you post such garbage? It doesn't take a genius to realize that most of these comments are coming from the same person. Just read them - they sound almost all identical.

PS: I am bored with this discussion. If these anti-development wingnuts can stop another project in Halifax then I think that there is little hope for Halifax.

sdm

Oct 14, 2010, 2:00 AM

Why would you post such garbage? It doesn't take a genius to realize that most of these comments are coming from the same person. Just read them - they sound almost all identical.

PS: I am bored with this discussion. If these anti-development wingnuts can stop another project in Halifax then I think that there is little hope for Halifax.

Fenwick the comments are from multi persons.

Besides, let the b.s. about the anti development wingnuts stopping another development. It will be the taxpayers that maybe responsible for the halt of this project, not the anti development people.

But for just one minute please think, why is there now close to 20 projects for downtown either approved or pending approval, yet not one besides the rental building (the vic) has started? Its because the market is in negative mode.

If you want to save downtown, which i for one want to, then take all your efforts and go after council. They are the ones who have killed downtown with there continued obstruction, costs (fees), and not paying attention to it (downtown).

People don't want to come downtown because its not close to there homes, and this comes from first hand, first contact knowledge. Public access and parking plain sucks.

The trade centre will not save downtown. The province would be far better served to decrease business taxes and HST to stimulate the economy. Maybe then some of these private developments would actually get built.

Keith P.

Oct 14, 2010, 2:00 AM

This needs a fully independent review. A comment at the globe by a CA was very wise - he said get a CA firm with no ties and no vested interest to review this = get the AG to review it NOW not later. Lets get some independent eyes on this deal.

That was already done by Deloitte. For a smart guy I'm surprised you didn't know that.

All these armchair experts fascinate me.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 2:12 AM

Fenwick the comments are from multi persons.

Besides, let the b.s. about the anti development wingnuts stopping another development. It will be the taxpayers that maybe responsible for the halt of this project, not the anti development people.

But for just one minute please think, why is there now close to 20 projects for downtown either approved or pending approval, yet not one besides the rental building (the vic) has started? Its because the market is in negative mode.

If you want to save downtown, which i for one want to, then take all your efforts and go after council. They are the ones who have killed downtown with there continued obstruction, costs (fees), and not paying attention to it (downtown).

People don't want to come downtown because its not close to there homes, and this comes from first hand, first contact knowledge. Public access and parking plain sucks.

The trade centre will not save downtown. The province would be far better served to decrease business taxes and HST to stimulate the economy. Maybe then some of these private developments would actually get built.

Not understanding the importance of attracting people from outside the province shows that you are out of touch with the global economy. I actually do believe that this will help save the downtown. If it goes ahead, I will bet that you will see numerous other projects go ahead. It will send a signal to business leaders that years of obstructionism are coming to an end.

Fenwick the comments are from multi persons.

How can you know this - are they all friends of yours? I am sure that one of them sounds like someone who is well known in the Halifax area as opposing everything (actually many of the comments sound like they are coming from this same person). I wonder if he has started posting on this forum? (I am not referring to you sdm, you are just out of touch with reality).

sdm

Oct 14, 2010, 2:26 AM

Not understanding the importance of attracting people from outside the province shows that you are out of touch with the global economy. I actually do believe that this will help save the downtown. If it goes ahead, I will bet that you will see numerous other projects go ahead. It will send a signal to business leaders that years of obstructionism are coming to an end.

How can you know this - are they all friends of yours? I am sure that one of them sounds like someone who is well known in the Halifax area as opposing everything (actually many of the comments sound like they are coming from this same person). I wonder if he has started posting on this forum? (I am not referring to you sd'm, you are just out of touch with reality).

I work in the industry Fenwick, and further this, i represent businesses looking for space (office) as a profession. So lets say i am closer to the action then you are. I deal with companies in the U.S., U.K. and Eurpoe, so please don't attempt to lecture me on whether or not i am in touch with the "global" economy.

Other developments may go, but don't be fooled in thinking that this one development will cause others to go. If anything it will delay many of them.

I am far from anti development, seeing how i am involved in no less then three developments at this moment.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 2:56 AM

I work in the industry Fenwick, and further this, i represent businesses looking for space (office) as a profession. So lets say i am closer to the action then you are. I deal with companies in the U.S., U.K. and Eurpoe, so please don't attempt to lecture me on whether or not i am in touch with the "global" economy.

Other developments may go, but don't be fooled in thinking that this one development will cause others to go. If anything it will delay many of them.

I am far from anti development, seeing how i am involved in no less then three developments at this moment.

How can you be so close to the action and be against something as fundamental as a convention centre? If you are in the development field (which I believe that you are, based on your posts) then maybe your real purpose is to oppose a competitor (Rank Inc.). At times, I get the feeling that this is what you are doing. You seem to be vehemently opposed to tax-payers money going towards a subsidy (your definition) on the Nova Centre but then you recommend a much more expensive proposal at the Cogswell Interchange.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 3:24 AM

I just read the allnovascotia.com story. The Dexter government is considering the option of paying the costs as they occur (I would guess that there would probably be a downpayment of a certain amount and then incremental payments as the project reaches predetermined milestones). This seems like the best option to me. The province and municipality would save several million dollars in interest payments (the cost would then be $140 million without the interim financing charge of $19 million - the federal government won't cover any of the interim interest charges). I would also like to know if the province could then choose to own the centre at the end of 25 years (if not then shouldn't they get a better deal as with most leases?)

If the charges are paid as construction proceeds then it sounds like the federal government is committed to paying 1/3 of the construction cost of $140 million x 1/3 = $46.7 million dollars. Then the province and HRM would be required to pay $46.7 million each over the three year construction period.

halifaxboyns

Oct 14, 2010, 3:36 AM

Fenwick - you can be in development and not be pro convention centre. I have to be honest; the only reason I'm supporting it is because I don't believe that either side is giving full details and I have a personal dislike and distrust of anything related to the HT/save the whatever crowd. So frankly, anything that sends them into a tissy - oh yeah, I'm all for.

But if you had asked me a while back; despite my positive attitude towards downtown - I was squarely in the no column for a while. People have different opinions; that's life.

I spent the day getting beat up by industry and communities on a project I'm working on - I know I'm going the right way because no one is happy. It's a part of life and I respect sdm and any others for where they stand, regardless of whether they understand the business case or not. I'm certainly in no position to argue it - but let them have their opinion.

This may be supported by the province but let's face it; there are still a number of hurdles to go through - so it's not close to a done deal. I'd prefer to gloat that it goes ahead once all the hurdles are passed (no offense SDM, I just couldn't resist hehe).:tup:

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 4:05 AM

Many people keep referring to the Nova Centre as a bunker. If being mainly underground is a stumbling block then why not build the convention centre portion partly at street level and partly over Grafton Street (instead of under). Then Grafton Street will remain open as a pedway and the Nova Centre won't be a bunker (The Philadelphia convention centre is built over a street). Of course the simplest solution for Rank Inc. would be to close of Grafton Street and build it above ground at street level.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 4:19 AM

But if you had asked me a while back; despite my positive attitude towards downtown - I was squarely in the no column for a while. People have different opinions; that's life.

There is hope that once Rank Inc. has the three levels of government on-board then changes can be made to the design. I read that Joe Ramia has stated that the design is preliminary and that they will get public input regarding the design. (I didn't look for the source link). PS: Maybe the office tower could even be converted to a condominium - it is close to Spring Garden Road and the downtown core, so it is in a good location for a condo. Then the current WTCC could continue to be used by the Trade Centre Ltd. for office sapce. I actually agree with sdm on that - if the office tower isn't required then why build it? It sounds to me as though the office tower isn't required in order for the Nova Centre to proceed.

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 11:32 AM

That was already done by Deloitte. For a smart guy I'm surprised you didn't know that.

All these armchair experts fascinate me.

Lets not get carried away on the smart thing. I dont know much about politics or developments. IM still trying to get up to speed

I may flip flop on this when I see some meat. Right now a PDF presentation and a feasibility report and a lot of hype combined with a bunch of bad reporting on jobs numbers is nowhere near enough for me. IT all sounds to me like a New Card ad on the back page of the herald. I want to see all the fine print they line up the side in a #3 font of the disclaimers and the details on interest rates and downpayments etc.

I am by no means antidevelopment. WE need something in this area. Things are stagnant but putting out a product in a declining industry with stiff competition with questionable financing terms. It all just isnt sitting with me well. This has a CWG ring to it in that we are not being told the whole story on costs.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 11:45 AM

I am by no means antidevelopment. WE need something in this area. Things are stagnant but putting out a product in a declining industry with stiff competition with questionable financing terms. It all just isnt sitting with me well. This has a CWG ring to it in that we are not being told the whole story on costs.

The fact that you term the convention business as a declining business indicates that you are basing your opinions on the anti-development rhetoric. I have been going to large conventions for many years and the only decline that I have seen is due to the current recession. By the time the convention centre is complete then the recession will be over. So now it a good time to build it, during a lull in activity. The opposition to the convention centre initially focused on its height, all the economic rhetoric against it was simply to put a halt to a tall development. So I consider it to be a lot of anti-development garbage.

sdm

Oct 14, 2010, 2:00 PM

Catalyst or missed opportunity?
Convention centre a lightning rod for opinions
By CHRIS LAMBIE Business Editor
Thu, Oct 14 - 4:53 AM

A Rank Inc. drawing of what the convention centre may look like.

Halifax’s proposed convention centre was panned Wednesday as an underground bunker and praised as the catalyst for reviving a flagging downtown.

The provincial government’s decision to go ahead with funding its portion of the convention centre didn’t have the head of developer Rank Inc. planning a party.

"Really, there is no celebration," Joe Ramia said. "There is still lots to do."

The estimated $500-million project on the former Halifax Herald Ltd. property would also include a hotel and an office tower.

"I think this project will not only invigorate our city, but it is one that will act as a catalyst for further downtown development," Ramia said. "And it will spur economic growth in the whole province."

EllisDon Corp., which has an office in Halifax, would be the main contractor for the project, which is expected to take 3½ to four years to complete. Excavation could start as soon as next month and construction could begin by January.

Some critics are cringing over details of the proposal.

"It’s a big opportunity missed for the city," said Keith Tufts, a principal at Lydon Lynch Architects in Halifax.

"A purpose-built convention centre or a design that spoke more specifically to a convention centre and a cultural centrepiece for the city would be a better undertaking than what’s being proposed on that location, which is essentially a convention centre in a bunker."

Ramia said there’s room for the project’s design to be tweaked.

"What we have presented is very preliminary," he said. "We are looking forward to the opportunity of working with our stakeholders, our neighbours, and the community, the province and the city in defining the collective aspiration for this new facility.

"We have the best people in the convention business in the world working with us on this project."

Those include the U.S. firms Conventional Wisdom, of Florida, and Populous, of Missouri, as well as local designer Noel Fowler, who once worked for Lydon Lynch.

The region’s largest landlord was pleased with the province’s decision to back the convention centre.

"The convention centre for Halifax is generally a good thing," said Robert Richardson, vice-president and chief financial officer of Killam Properties Inc.

"Although we have properties in Halifax that may find competition in the new convention centre, I believe overall it’s better for the region and will attract more businesses so that everybody benefits."

Halifax should be "the jewel of Atlantic Canada," Richardson said. "This is a step in the right direction."

Others characterized it as a misstep.

"People saying it will spur development just don’t know what they’re talking about," said Armour Group chairman Ben McCrea, who built Halifax’s existing convention centre.

"Three hundred thousand square feet of new office space is part of this complex; (that’s) the absorption for at least five years."

McCrea also questioned whether the project would boost the province’s economy.

"If I was really smart I would find a home for investment outside Nova Scotia, because I think we’re going to pay for some of this," he said.

Bar baron Victor Syperek is of two minds on the proposed convention centre-hotel-office tower complex.

"The idea of kind of a focal point downtown is great, to have a new block of shops and things, because right now it’s pretty barren," said Syperek, who owns the Economy Shoe Shop complex and the Seahorse Tavern on Argyle Street.

"I do object to them blocking the view (from Citadel Hill) but it seems inevitable that’s going to happen. And also, if they turned the building sideways, it wouldn’t block the view so badly."

Construction is sure to hamper business on Argyle Street, Syperek said.

"It will be very disruptive for three years of construction," he said. "I’m just worried about the dust and the noise. They have such an enormous rock to move from there."

Syperek had a novel suggestion for what to do with the construction debris.

"They’re going to bring out millions of tonnes of rock and they have to dispose of it," he said. "Why don’t they build a breakwater in front of Bishop’s Landing and the Halifax waterfront and build a marina down there?"

The convention centre would help "kick-start the economy of downtown Halifax and Nova Scotia in general," said Luc Erjavec, the Atlantic vice-president of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

"It will help us create a vibrant downtown and help create a vibrant economy in Nova Scotia," he said. "We’re all for it."

( clambie@herald.ca)

beyeas

Oct 14, 2010, 2:02 PM

I found McCrea's comments very interesting... he is trying as hard as he can to shoot this project in the foot to further his own interests.

He has taken up the language of calling it "Ramia's Bunker" in the press, and is actively campaigning against it. Certainly puts a dent in the armour (pun intended) of this being a catalyst for further development. He goes on about design etc, but the meat of what he is upset about is that if this goes ahead it makes Queen's landing office space and the Waterside less feasible, and that's really what he is pissed about.

It sucks because he is a respected and respected developer, and it is entirely possible he has very valid points (for example pertaining to the design), but the sheer venom that he spits when talks about this project makes me tune him out (like publicly calling it Ramia's Bunker and thereby giving defacto support to HTs arguments).

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 2:02 PM

FENWICK - I am not an anti development wingnut and I do not take what they say at face value. TO throw me under the bus with them is a weak argument. I am very concerned with the details of this P3 lease deal. Its a damn P3 to a T and I dont like the terms as revealed. Have we not learned anything.

One need only look at the data. I am staring at the TCL financials as we speak 08/09 $6.6 Million in revs for the Trade center 05/06 $6 Million.

Attendance 05/06 142,600 and in 08/09 96,500

Obviously they are spending more But that brings me to my next point or trying to weed through the information and disinformation. On the TCL website I also have the RANK bid presentation. about 80% of the way through on the slide that is titled "Future potential"

That slide claims 08/09 fiscal they had 163,365 attendees and will get 221,000 by year 5. I see a lot of numbers thrown around and some add up and some don't. but many numbers including the jobs number were HYPED and not properly presented.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 2:21 PM

Buckey and sdm (thanks for posting the unbiased article above), I actually agree with about half of what each of you is saying.

These are the points that I agree with:

1) The province and HRM should finance this differently. If the province and municipality pay over a period of 3 - 4 years during construction then the cost will only be ($46.7 million x 2 levels of government)/309,000 square feet/25 years = $12.09/square-foot for the province and HRM combined - this is similar to the Burnside rate that you quoted for Class A office space (on top of this there are maintenance charges as there would be with any office or industrial lease). The province will save the $19 million in interim financing charges (this is like a layaway deal but they are paying through the nose for it). They will also be able to finance it at a lower interest rate than Rank Inc. can.
2) sdm's point about there being too much office space, and wasting available office space in the current WTCC. I agree this seems like a waste - why can't the Tarde Centre Inc. stay in the current WTCC? Ideally, instead of the office tower, Rank Inc. would build a condominium.
3) More of the convention centre should be built above ground - it will be cheaper to build and more user-friendly. Hopefully Rank Inc. can find a way to do this and also keep Grafton Street open as a pedestrian pathway.

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 2:58 PM

Buckey and sdm (thanks for posting the unbiased article above), I actually agree with about half of what each of you is saying.
These are the points that I agree with:

1) The province and HRM should finance this differently. If the province and municipality pay over a period of 3 - 4 years during construction then the cost will only be ($46.7 million x 2 levels of government)/309,000 square feet/25 years = $12.09/square-foot for the province and HRM combined - this is similar to the Burnside rate that you quoted for Class A office space (on top of this there are maintenance charges as there would be with any office or industrial lease). The province will save the $19 million in interim financing charges (this is like a layaway deal but they are paying through the nose for it). They will also be able to finance it at a lower interest rate than Rank Inc. can.
2) sdm's point about there being too much office space, and wasting available office space in the current WTCC. I agree this seems like a waste - why can't the Tarde Centre Inc. stay in the current WTCC? Ideally, instead of the office tower, Rank Inc. would build a condominium.
3) More of the convention centre should be built above ground - it will be cheaper to build and more user-friendly. Hopefully Rank Inc. can find a way to do this and also keep Grafton Street open as a pedestrian pathway.

I Think this may hit more opposition at council that we expect due to the deal itself. Not The concept. so thank you for not putting me in the wingnut category. The tweed jacket did not fit and the birkenstocks would not of given me enough srch support and the beard would be itchy as well as PIPE tobacco is cancenegenic. Now there is sterotype

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 3:04 PM

Haliguy

Oct 14, 2010, 3:30 PM

The fact that you term the convention business as a declining business indicates that you are basing your opinions on the anti-development rhetoric. I have been going to large conventions for many years and the only decline that I have seen is due to the current recession. By the time the convention centre is complete then the recession will be over. So now it a good time to build it, during a lull in activity. The opposition to the convention centre initially focused on its height, all the economic rhetoric against it was simply to put a halt to a tall development. So I consider it to be a lot of anti-development garbage.

Completely agree...the only reason the Save the View people are playing the number sgame because they now they have no case on the view from the hill.

halifaxboyns

Oct 14, 2010, 3:56 PM

I found Victor's comments pretty telling on the business community perspective. He batted off the issue of the view from citadell hill in an instant and moved on.

McCrea is obviously biased and I think any other developer would be - part of the up in the area issue is the office component. I've done some research in hopes I'd find an example, but haven't seen anything regarding condos attached to a convention centre. Certainly if the office component is an issue, why not swap it out? Or as others have pointed out - convert the older office towers that empty out into something different. That old office building on Spring Garden Road could probably be converted to a hotel or even loft type condos with some effort.

As I understand the project (fenwick can correct me; I think he's done a lot more research into it than I) there is no up front cost to the Province or the City. We only pay once the building is open and operating.

The fact that Rank is saying the design was preliminary is pretty typical. I've dealt with land uses changes (rezonings) for projects time and time again - half if not 90% of the time the sketches people see for the end project are preliminary. I had one here in Calgary that was for a seniors complex that was pretty impressive - now the concept is totally different.

If they do build more of the convention centre above ground to animate the street, I'm of the belief that it should only be the gathering space. The actual convention meeting rooms should remain underground or in an area where light can't cause problems. If we want this to succeed we must ensure the space will function well and part of that is ensuring that any electronic presentations can be seen with a projector.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 4:56 PM

I think that we must discount a lot of the people currently being quoted on this center. I feel that anything Ramia or Mcrea say are obviously biased. Lydon Lynch are likely not objective. The heritage group well they dont even know what they are against. They answer NO before the question is asked.

I march to my own drummer in many ways. I am trying to look at this different ways and am trying to like the project. Right now we pay $3 Million a year to the TCL. Now we are being asked for $50 Million up front and about $15 Million a year for a new center including new operating losses. Lets ignore the feds contribution will the new center be 5 times as good?

I know its a simplistic way of looking at it but its complicated so I tried the sq foot way and this way. I just dont like renting two ground level floors overlooking the economy shoe shop for that type of money while pouring yearly profits intop someones pocket and paying off his mortgage

Buckey, this is not right - it is not $50 million up front and $15 million per year to operate. Is is either $46.7 million per year for the 3 levels of government plus about 2.9 miilion in annual operating expenses or it will be $57 million x 2 (NS and HRM) = $114 million dollars amortized over 25 years ($10.2 million/year) starting in the year 2014 plus the 2.9 million per year to operate. If the 3 levels of government decide to pay in lump sum payments, then it is usually spread over the construction period. If the 3 levels of government finance it this way then they will not be paying the $10.2 million per year.

It will be either:
1) Pay-as-they-go - $46.7 million dollars for the 3 levels of government as construction proceeds over 3 - 4 years plus $2.9 million/year for operating expenses
or
2) Layaway Plan (no money paid until the year 2014) - 10.2 million per year starting in 2014 for 25 years plus $2.9 million/year for operating expenses. This has no payments until the year 2014.

(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1206931.html )
Officials said at a briefing last week that the province and Halifax Regional Municipality would cover the rest of the cost in a 25-year capital lease. The annual lease payment would be $10.2 million, plus another $2.9 million in annual maintenance and upgrading costs.

Dexter said Wednesday the funding details still have to be negotiated. Halifax regional council plans to discuss the project at a meeting next Tuesday, while the province has sent a funding application to the federal government.

My feeling is that you are purposely trying to inflate the numbers. If you want to make a legitimate case against the convention centre then it would be best not to treat us like idiots and use Heritage Trust tactics.

halifaxboyns

Oct 14, 2010, 6:44 PM

Against: Too big, too costly

By HOWARD EPSTEIN
Thu, Oct 14 - 4:53 AM

MLA Howard Epstein (ERIC WYNNE / Staff)

The disappointing and wrong-headed decision of the provincial cabinet is not a green light for the convention centre proposal.

It is a cost-shared proposal and attention now has to shift to the two other government partners, Ottawa and the Halifax Regional Municipality. Pressure should be put on both of those governments not to get involved. The city’s property taxpayers, especially, cannot afford it. And Parks Canada has gone on record opposing the height of the towers because of negative effects on the Citadel.

Here are some of the reasons not to fund this proposal:

•Under city zoning rules, heights are limited on these two blocks, but if a publicly funded convention centre is included, any development can be twice as high. The province’s funding triggers tall towers that could not otherwise be built. The province is funding blockage of the free public view from Citadel Hill.

•This is hugely expensive: $7 million for each of the province and city per year for 25 years.

•City property taxpayers will have to pay the same amount. This will put upward pressure on taxes. Homeowners are tapped out. We can’t afford this.

•The tourism sector is quite healthy. It does not need a big infusion of cash.

•The Halifax Regional Municipality is the area of the province least in need of a cash infusion.

•If the province wants to make capital investments in the Halifax Regional Municipality, there are lots of other projects it could fund.

•The city’s downtown needs development, but not this one. Human-scale projects work in the downtown. A lot have been built and are entirely successful (Prince George Hotel, the Marriott Courtyard, the Sheraton Four Point, the additions to Neptune Theatre, the Cambridge Suites).

•In a time of restraint, while the province attempts to bring the budget back into balance, why will Nova Scotians accept layoffs of teachers or restraint of wages or delay in capital projects or any other cost-cutting measure, if the province can afford to fund a convention centre?

•This is a P-3 arrangement. The public pays for something the developer will own and we lease back. This never makes sense.

•The projected increase in convention business is very unlikely to materialize. Serious study of convention centres shows they are overbuilt and generally do not live up to advance claims for increased business. Here, the Trade Centre Ltd.’s projections make very dubious assumptions.

•Rather than stimulating the downtown, if this project is ever built it is more likely to stifle other developments. There is not enough demand for Class A expensive downtown office space to support multiple large projects. Other towers approved by city council for the downtown have not been built.

•This is the wrong site. Even apart from blocking the view, there are the problems of building tall towers on narrow downtown streets: the wind and shadow effects on nearby businesses will make Argyle Street unliveable, adjacent small-scale buildings will be overwhelmed and big trucks serving the centre will have to manoeuvre onto streets that are too narrow.

Howard Epstein is the New Democrat MLA for Halifax Chebucto.

I am beyond irate over this...I cannot describe the literal hatred I'm forming for this person. As a former card carrying NDP - I want him out of cabinet...now.

DigitalNinja

Oct 14, 2010, 7:00 PM

Yesterday that idiot that replaced Andrew crystal was on maritime morning with Peter Kelly. The idiot was spouting off all these numbers same as everyone who opposes it. (and that idiot on these forums inflating the numbers and trying to wrap his small brain around them(I like personal insults)) anyway and Kelly outright said to him that nothing has been decided on a cost structure yet, all the numbers that are floating around are just one option of many or nit even considered anymore.
Honestly I would much rather my tax money be spent on a convention center, rather than a 50 (appox value not sure what it exactly was but something like that.)million dollar hockey rink or other things that doesn't impact a lot of people. Lots of people will use this convention center and it will only boost the downtown economy which is much needed IMO.

someone123

Oct 14, 2010, 7:10 PM

Some of his points are correct but he is carefully crafting an argument designed to convince a reader to oppose the development, not trying to present a balanced view.

One of the weird points in this article is about the province "funding blockages of views". This is a bizarre way to look at the HRM by Design bonus system which was precisely designed to give the government more leverage in deals like this. The public can leverage the value of increased height to developers in order to get a better deal than what would happen with no incentive (no sweetheart deals for the province if the office and hotel towers can be built either way). The post-bonus heights were also set as part of the process so this is not a surprise.

Similarly I think the arguments about who needs a cash infusion are particularly weak. With HRM generating more than half of the province's tax revenues and most of the economic activity I don't think building a major development once every 30 years downtown requires a huge amount of justification.

People well-versed in urban design would also point out that some of the short developments Epstein holds up as shining examples are in fact pretty terrible in a variety of ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with height (and conversely, many good but tall buildings exist in Halifax). He clearly knows very little about what makes good development since he did not choose better examples.

beyeas

Oct 14, 2010, 7:12 PM

I am beyond irate over this...I cannot describe the literal hatred I'm forming for this person. As a former card carrying NDP - I want him out of cabinet...now.

Thankfully he is not in cabinet.

But yeah, I am with you. I saw him walking out of the market a couple of weeks ago and I flipped him the bird as I drove past.
:D

halifaxboyns

Oct 14, 2010, 7:57 PM

Thankfully he is not in cabinet.

But yeah, I am with you. I saw him walking out of the market a couple of weeks ago and I flipped him the bird as I drove past.
:D

When I lived in Halifax and would participate in gay pride (either march or was on the committee); during pride day we'd always see the NDP there, they always are.

I'd always say hello to him and other NDP leaders, since I was a party member and it wasn't uncommon for me to be involved in events. As much as I would still be polite and probably support the NDP if I moved back; if I move into Howard's ward - I'd vote communist before I'd vote for him. I'm right there with you - I'd not only flip him the bird, I'd give him a piece of my mind.

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 8:04 PM

I will double check that but for now I want the REAL Jobs number. AS I have clearly deomnstrtated the jobs promises after construction at 28,000 Jobs over ten years an incremental 12,000 JOBS over the ten years or 1,200 NEW JOBS over ten years. I got out the old calculator and said dooh de doh that means we have currently have 1,500 jobs at TCL. well doh de doh the salareis wages and benefits for one year at trade center currently is 4 Million a year so out comes the old caluclator doh de doh The average person makes $2,700 a year. Doh de Doh

Lets talk FTEs I would say TCL has 100 FTE and new new center will not be increasing that ten fold. even taking the HYPE number they tricked everyone with of 28,000 which was really 2,800 jobs that is noweher near 2,800 FTEs.

Why is that every stab I take at this gets worse.. Do all these new jobs include the hotel? They sure monitored the Offshore development we better measure the results versus the plan of this one

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 8:38 PM

Am I making an idiot of myself with this JOBS thing? stop me and explain my errors if so I will not post until tomorrow.
https://conventioncentreinfo.com/documents/studies/

all of the studies match up to the recent presentation. Roughly they say we get 1,200 new JOBS and imply we have 1,500 Jobs and they say DIRECT but I must be misunderstanding what a direct JOB is. I assume it is WTCC or even a TCL employee. These do not marry up to anything in the existing financials or furture revenue flows.

Min wage at 40 hours a week runs you $24,000 a year all in. current wages are $4 Million for entire TCL and entore TCL revenues are $15 Million.

http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/en/home/abouttcl/corporatepolicies/annualreports.aspx

The jobs numbersd are way out of whack with the revenue numbers in all cases. The entire hotel must be included in numbers. Could someone else take a whack at this - maybe somebody PRO Nova Center as I am obviously anti at this point. Iapologize in advance if I messed up this.

and to the person who said something about a second set of eyes altready looked at it. ah yes it was KP when he called me smart. Anyway They looked over the and issued a report a long time ago. I want someone to audit this specific proposal.

hfx_chris

Oct 14, 2010, 8:47 PM

Regarding the current WTCC - it has served its purpose. If the province or municipality don't want it then they can tear it down and turn it into a park. Or hang onto it and build a bigger better Metro Centre in 10 years time with 15,000 seats.
I wonder if the MC/WTCC could be renovated, and have the ice surface rotated 90 degrees so it runs east-west. There would then be a lot more space on the sides for upper decks.

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 9:01 PM

This report when I opened it was dated July 2009 but it is actualy more recent as it is detailed.
https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Deloitte-Report.pdf

It obviously has reveiwed some of the existing proposal but does say that the revnue sharing model needs to be determined

It is hard on the eyes I would really need the entore weekend to read all these rports and would need hard copies and then maybe I will get my head out of my ass because I know that is what many are thinking about me. IM new to this stuff but not new to business proosals in the private sector.

DigitalNinja

Oct 14, 2010, 9:16 PM

They point I was trying to make in my post is that nothing is set in stone yet, and those job number are just speculation it is not worth discussing this now. This is a sky scraper forum, not how many jobs will come from something.
There will be jobs created which is the main thing with this. from the initial development to the planners, sales, hotel, cleaners in the builds any stores that open up in them etc etc. There are lots of oppertunities.
Also there may be more stores opening up close by or in tourist areas due to a bigger convention center which once again will contribute.
Also there may be temp jobs with different conventions going on, each one may hire someone for a week or something.
We should not be debating should we have a new convention center, but that what this will bring to Halifax.
FYI, like I said HRM spent a great amount on that new hockey arena in bedford, not sure how much but close to 50 million. There will be no where near the same amount of jobs come from an ice rink as a convention center, so your argument is a bit of a moot point. You should have been protesting agains the arena instead.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 9:39 PM

I wonder if the MC/WTCC could be renovated, and have the ice surface rotated 90 degrees so it runs east-west. There would then be a lot more space on the sides for upper decks.

Eventually (hopefully within 10 - 15 years) it would be good to see a new 15,000 seat Metro Centre similar to the new MTS Arena in Winnipeg. I think, as you do, that the rink would have to be rotated 90 degrees but it might be less expensive to start from scratch and tear the current Metro Centre down at that time. In the meantime, Mayor Kelly has mentioned adding more washrooms to the Metro Centre if the city takes over the current WTCC (I am not sure where I read it?). Later I can see how the Winnipeg MTS centre would fit on the current Metro Centre site (with the WTCC torn down).

Personally, I hope that Halifax will have a new outdoor stadium and CFL team and then start thinking about a new Metro Centre down the road (hopefully both will happen in the not too distant future).

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 9:48 PM

Digital Ninja,
I never liked the quad plex and I think the JOBs number is very on point and on topic. saying I should be against something else is the same as all the wahoos saying this money could be better spent on something else.

The jobs numbers are being used to promote this project. I am debating those numbers

Keith P.

Oct 14, 2010, 9:56 PM

Yesterday that idiot that replaced Andrew crystal was on maritime morning with Peter Kelly. The idiot was spouting off all these numbers same as everyone who opposes it. (and that idiot on these forums inflating the numbers and trying to wrap his small brain around them(I like personal insults)) anyway and Kelly outright said to him that nothing has been decided on a cost structure yet, all the numbers that are floating around are just one option of many or nit even considered anymore.

That idiot is Rick Howe and yes, he is a moron. Always railing against "the man" and against any sort of development. He and Kommissar Epstein make for a good pair of jokers -- both worthless.

If D. Dexter had a backbone he would boot der Kommissar and his followers out of caucus and let them sit out in the cold.

DigitalNinja

Oct 14, 2010, 10:01 PM

Buckey

Oct 14, 2010, 10:03 PM

My point was there is nothing concrete on this yet, neither the design, jobs, etc... And you don't know how they are finding out the job numbers and what they are counting as a job. They are probably counting every possible thing that goes with the convention center.

Cheers I guess I need to drill down into all of these numbers. Id love to see some more cranes in our city matter of fact are not some devlopment stalled by the developers themselves

musicman

Oct 14, 2010, 10:03 PM

You can't turn the rink 90 degrees because of both the roof and how the west side seats are part of the structure of the rink... The main support steel runs accross the rink not from end to end. Basically the whole thing would have to be redesigned, re-engineered, and rebuilt costing way way more money than building a new one. Besides many rinks that have been rebuilt in the manner have sever weight restrictions on roof loads which are not good for concerts.

sdm

Oct 14, 2010, 11:08 PM

That idiot is Rick Howe and yes, he is a moron. Always railing against "the man" and against any sort of development. He and Kommissar Epstein make for a good pair of jokers -- both worthless.

If D. Dexter had a backbone he would boot der Kommissar and his followers out of caucus and let them sit out in the cold.

If he did that he can kiss a majority of his Halifax seats gone with a move like that.

spaustin

Oct 14, 2010, 11:09 PM

sdm

Oct 14, 2010, 11:12 PM

My point was there is nothing concrete on this yet, neither the design, jobs, etc... And you don't know how they are finding out the job numbers and what they are counting as a job. They are probably counting every possible thing that goes with the convention center.

There is minor tweaking with the design that might happen, but that will be purely material choices or internal finishes. Soon as the design changes any the bid changes, and subsequently the price.

The developer has clearly stated he will allow public input into the design, but in the end that he has the final say as cited in a allnovascotia article.

fenwick16

Oct 14, 2010, 11:26 PM

I wonder if the MC/WTCC could be renovated, and have the ice surface rotated 90 degrees so it runs east-west. There would then be a lot more space on the sides for upper decks.

Quite amazingly, it seems as though the MTS Centre in Winnipeg would be almost a perfect fit for the Metro Centre/WTCC site in Halifax with the rink at 90 degrees to the current layout. Here is the Winnipeg MTS Centre overlaid on the Halifax site. If this ever happens then Halifax would have to use the Halifax Forum for a couple of years.

PS: The MTS has a slightly slanted front but I am sure that a new Metro Centre II could be built square to Argyle Street. So it actually looks like it is possible.

15,000 Winnipeg MTS Centre Arena overlaid on the Metro Centre/WTCC block
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9383/mtsoverhalifaxmetrocent.jpg

DigitalNinja

Oct 15, 2010, 12:34 AM

There is minor tweaking with the design that might happen, but that will be purely material choices or internal finishes. Soon as the design changes any the bid changes, and subsequently the price.

The developer has clearly stated he will allow public input into the design, but in the end that he has the final say as cited in a allnovascotia article.

Didn't know it was final, final. Still we don't know exactly how they are coming up with the job numbers or what type of structure they will be using for financing it.

Empire

Oct 15, 2010, 12:48 AM

There is minor tweaking with the design that might happen, but that will be purely material choices or internal finishes. Soon as the design changes any the bid changes, and subsequently the price.

The developer has clearly stated he will allow public input into the design, but in the end that he has the final say as cited in a allnovascotia article.

I hope the developer realizes that the convention centre should have street presence on more than just Argyle St. (not currently in the design). In addition, space at the top of the hotel would be great for receptions or a restaurant to max out the view. The current Trade Centre has zero street presence so I hope we don't repeat this mistake.

sdm

Oct 15, 2010, 2:25 AM

I hope the developer realizes that the convention centre should have street presence on more than just Argyle St. (not currently in the design). In addition, space at the top of the hotel would be great for receptions or a restaurant to max out the view. The current Trade Centre has zero street presence so I hope we don't repeat this mistake.

Well one would need to only assume that the bid submission is based on the current design. If there are changes, which most likely would result in cost based changes that the bid amount is in question. Maybe there is an allowance built into the bid price for some changes, one can hope.

Overall i think the total project design may be causing an influence on the convention centre design. But who knows.......

Buckey

Oct 15, 2010, 2:46 AM

Empire

Oct 15, 2010, 3:38 AM

Howard Epstein shows his true colours. Except for the Marriott Courtyard, the buildings that Epstein lauds are cheap and ugly. Here you have four small hotels consuming a lot of prime downtown land. If the Prince George site had been developed with double the density the design no doubt would have been better and large conventions could be attracted. The Cambridge Suite site would be better for residential/commercial. The hotels that Mr. Epstein lists are too small to accommodate larger conventions where all of the attendants want to stay in one hotel.

Against: Too big, too costly

By HOWARD EPSTEIN
Thu, Oct 14 - 5:53 PM

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1206926.html

The city’s downtown needs development, but not this one. Human-scale projects work in the downtown. A lot have been built and are entirely successful (Prince George Hotel, the Marriott Courtyard, the Sheraton Four Point, the additions to Neptune Theatre, the Cambridge Suites).

fenwick16

Oct 15, 2010, 3:47 AM

The Hype phase is over and the thinking phase has begun. media reports tonight not so rosy on its liklihood. 160 million for two basement floors. I think people are starting to think through this one through a bit more. people are reading what little fine print there is

What do you think about the new Central Library? I doubt that there will be much income generated by that building. The number of jobs generated will likely be a few jobs per year at best. I am waiting to see this same organized opposition to the new Central Library since there is absolutely no business case for it to proceed - except that maybe the wingnuts don't oppose libraries ....

Buckey

Oct 15, 2010, 4:02 AM

What do you think about the new Central Library? I doubt that there will be much income generated by that building. The number of jobs generated will likely be a few jobs per year at best. I am waiting to see this same organized opposition to the new Central Library since there is absolutely no business case for it to proceed - except that maybe the wingnuts don't oppose libraries ....

No I think Print is on the way out. I do not think a new libarary is needed at all. we have great libraries at Dal and SMU that should be open to the public. I heard they were open for students to study. IN my ten years there I think I stumbled across one once by mistake ( joke on my lack of good study habits)

I think in this age we need to think long and hard about books, Think pads and the like will be the rage as prices come down. My 70 year old mother uses one. You are correct a Library creates few jobs - neither does a rink but Rinks offset some of their operating costs. I am not sure if there are even any rinks left in Darkness ( dartmouth) .

Imagine somone even suggesting the CC in Dartmouth OMG the horror. but someday we gotta do somthing sexy with Shannon park.

EDIT after lookig over my post the only good thinga Libabrary might do is teach me to spell

worldlyhaligonian

Oct 15, 2010, 4:39 AM

This isn't a retail area, its more bars and restaurants. A fine dining restaurant in glass on the lower level south corner would be good.

Nothing could ever be as bad as the Herald Building, except an empty lot or squat building.

fenwick16

Oct 15, 2010, 5:07 AM

No I think Print is on the way out. I do not think a new libarary is needed at all. we have great libraries at Dal and SMU that should be open to the public. I heard they were open for students to study. IN my ten years there I think I stumbled across one once by mistake ( joke on my lack of good study habits)

I think in this age we need to think long and hard about books, Think pads and the like will be the rage as prices come down. My 70 year old mother uses one. You are correct a Library creates few jobs - neither does a rink but Rinks offset some of their operating costs. I am not sure if there are even any rinks left in Darkness ( dartmouth) .

Imagine somone even suggesting the CC in Dartmouth OMG the horror. but someday we gotta do somthing sexy with Shannon park.

EDIT after lookig over my post the only good thinga Libabrary might do is teach me to spell

No, you don't put a Convention Centre in Dartmouth. Especially not on Shannon Park where they will have no place to spend their money. The purpose is to get people to come to the city, spend money and want to come back - this is the reason for putting it close to the Public Gardens, Halifax Citadel, Historic Properties, Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, Historic Properties, restaurants, hotels, etc. Apparently you have been reading other threads on this forum and you believe that you can generate some disruption by mentioning Shannon Park - people on this forum aren't that stupid (a Convention Centre is meant to generate jobs, I doubt that people are going to argue that it should be at Shannon Park).

The provincial and federal governments are spending $15,000 - $20,000 per people to support people without jobs. If we work out the numbers; $15,000, for every 1000 unemployed group of people equals $15 million per year. Multiply this by 25 years = $375,000,000 (that's $375 million dollars for every 1000 people to do nothing for 25 years). In Nova Scotia, there are currently 45.5 thousand unempolyed people (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/101008/t101008a3-eng.htm). So over 25 years that will be $375 million dollars/thousand-people times 45.5 thousand people = $17,062 million dollars (that's $17 billion dollars for all the unemployed in Nova Scotia for 25 years; if you factor in indexed-annual-cost-of-living increases then it becomes even more staggering). I am not opposed to people who are unemployed, but I have an strong distrust for people with secure jobs such as Howard Epstein, Phil Pacey, etc. who are paid very well and spend much of their time opposing jobs for Nova Scotians. Their arguments that tourists travel to Halifax to see the view from the Citadel is just hilarious to me (but nauseating). People can go to see millions of square miles of land throughout Canada with a view, instead they seem to prefer going to interesting cities. So send the heritage wingnuts out to the deserted parts of Canada and leave the cities for city-lovers.

I would rather have a government that stands up to these organized anti-development groups, and a government that makes an effort to create jobs. Nova Scotia needs a strong-willed government that won't cave in to the organized pressure from these fringe groups. If the NDP will show the backbone to stand up to these groups then they will earn the respect of thousands of people in the HRM who are fed up with these do-nothing to create jobs but oppose-everything groups.

PS: P-3 private-public construction methods do not necessarily mean that the private company will own the facility at the end of the 25 year term. Since the financing terms haven't be finalized, no one can say for certainty who will own the facility at the end of 25 years. Here is a good description of P-3 partnerships and the benefits (usually it is more efficient) http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Projects/Public_Private_Partnerships/FAQ.asp . The link is for Arizona but the concept is used worldwide.

Keith P.

Oct 15, 2010, 10:59 AM

MonctonRad

Oct 15, 2010, 11:24 AM

So what's up with der Kommissar Howard (the duck).........:koko:

He seems like a complete rogue agent now. He has shown his true colours and appears to be actually leading the opposition to the new convention centre!

Whatever happened to the party whip? Doesn't the NDP realize the potential damage to their party of having significant internal dissention on this issue?

Halifax after all is the NDP's citadel, its bastion...........if the party doesn't present a unified front on a significant issue affecting it's main base of support, then it really risks a major defeat at the next election.

Of course, it doesn't affect me.......I don't even live in the province and I tend to be a Tory but I find this entire scenario fascinating.:rolleyes:

Dexter has to muzzle der Kommissar quickly, or else kick him out of caucus.:yes:

beyeas

Oct 15, 2010, 11:31 AM

The Herald is reporting that the utterly useless NDP MP for Halifax, Megan Leslie, opposes the CC project. Isn't that special.

She is a clone of Howard Epstein in terms of policies so that is not surprising.

Of course, perhaps her being opposed to the project will make it easier for the Harper govt to support it.

Actually I will be curious to hear more details about her comments. If what she is really meaning is that she is part of the "It's too tall" crowd, then I will write her off.

However, taken purely at face value her comments are actually fair. She doesn't say she is against it, she just says that she is only for it if there is public input.

"I believe in the argument that our current convention centre does not meet Halifax’s needs," she said.

"I do have some pretty serious concerns about the location of this proposed new convention centre. I want to take the time to review the proposal properly. However, at this very initial stage, I believe that any federal funding must be contingent on civic engagement on the design."
(above quoted from the Herald article)

That is actually a fair comment about the lack on public engagement.
I think you would find far fewer people nervous about spending this money of they felt like there was public consultation in the process of it. I thought it was great that the government released the business cases etc that were done by the external consultants, but you have to admit that it likely gets people's back hairs up when the public was not asked for input on the site or the design.

THAT I think is a fair criticism. But, like I said, if she is simply hiding behind that as an alternative to outright siding with the HT folks, then I think she is wrong. To be honest, it is clearly too late to have major public input, and there is nothing much that can be done now, but that speaks to the fact that this was a decidedly flawed process and was handled badly. There is never ever uniformity in a decision, but people will always on average feel more comfortable with the government spending money when they feel like it meets THEIR needs rather than the governments needs. And without public input to the process, no matter what the final decision, it is hard for people to feel that way.

I would note as well that that is hardly a NDPer feeling... if you read the comment sections on the paper the vast majority of the people who are saying that their tax money should not be spent on this are identifying as non-NDP supporters.

fenwick16

Oct 15, 2010, 11:35 AM

If Premier Dexter is able to get the convention centre built he will prove to many that he is the right man for the job. If not then I have serious concerns that Halifax will be held back by all the fringe do-nothing groups for another 20 - 30 years. It would be so great to see these do-nothings walking around with a pout on their faces as the convention centre is being built. (it would be even better to see them going to the convention centre looking for a job after the next election).

Buckey

Oct 15, 2010, 11:37 AM

fenwick16

Oct 15, 2010, 12:58 PM

#1 No I am not reading many other threads here. My comment on Shannon park was I think something could go there. NO I dont think a convention center should be there. I actually like the location for the convention center. I would prefer a lowrise on the water but that is wishful thinking.

And yes the current proposal if approved as is is that RANK owns it and we lease it for 25 years. Yes we get two floors of that two tower project and pay 157 MM of the 500 MM take a look at the pics and ask ift hat is proportional?

and whomever questioned the $47 MM up front. I think some folks have not read through the proposals. There is no money due until 2014 upon completion and at that time the Feds kick in $47 MM and we start our lease payments of $110 MM over 25 years at $11 MM per year and $2MM oper year maintenance.

So we pay 1/3 of the mortgage and get 1/10th of the building for 25 years and at the end he owns the entire building. I made up that 1/10th as that is an eyeball number.

YES I REALIZE THAT NOTHING IS SET IN STONE BUT I AM COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSAL AS IT APPEARS NOW AS BEST AS ONE CAN FIGURE OUT WITH THE FUZZY INFORMATION AND MISREPORTING.

It is not a lack of understanding on my part - if you read your last statement, there is the answer - the NDP can still decide to fund differently - with no payments until 2014 or only pay $47 million during construction plus 2.9 million per year. The NDP can still choose the cheaper option (each level of government paying $47 million as construction proceeds). But it is not what you stated previously - $50 million up front and capital lease payments of $15 million (your numbers stated in post 1521) starting in 2014. It is either one or the other!

I think that you are trying to demonize Rank Inc. when in fact the payment option was chosen by the NDP. Here is a post from hfxtradesman who had inside information back on July 8 2010 (post 1065).

(source: post 1065 - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148136&page=54 )

#1065 Report Post
Old 07-08-2010, 09:06 PM
hfxtradesman

Well here is the latest this week. Doesn't it show you how fast things can change when there is a gov. involved. ESPECIALLY OURS.
But anyway, the gov. wants higher concessions(for what i don't know),which makes this a higher risk for investors, which puts the price of the project up. The final price will go in on time but it might collapse in the end, cause the price will be too high: You can try and figure it out yourself

I think this was likely when the NDP government asked for the no-payments until 2014 which will result in an extra interim financing charge of $19 million so that the convention centre cost is now being quoted as $159 million instead of $140 million dollars. It is costing an extra 19 million to delay all payments until the year 2014.

The other concern that you stated - that Rank will own it in the end; this would be open to negotiation which has not been finalized.

Buckey

Oct 15, 2010, 1:52 PM

OK I think i follow you know. I am tired of this.

CorbeauNoir

Oct 15, 2010, 8:46 PM

Dmajackson

Oct 15, 2010, 9:01 PM

^Well at least I'm not the only John Grisham fan. :)

I actually prefer having a book to read than a novel on a iPad or a computer. I'm sure plenty of people feel the same way and well there are other benefits of having a library.

halifaxboyns

Oct 15, 2010, 9:41 PM

halifaxboyns

Oct 15, 2010, 9:57 PM

I've been thinking this through for a few days now and from a design perspective this proposal lacks greatly. We've all pointed out that the street presence on Argyle is poor and should be redesigned.

If the comments earlier are correct and the Rank is only going to give 'token' consideration to any public input then frankly; I'm prepare to switch back to not in support and would sink it on that merit. Don't get me wrong, I think the project is important; but if he's not willing to consider some major planning flaws and wants to repeat the same issues that have come up with the WTCC then no let's not move forward.

I don't mind the issue of the meeting space being in the basement - most of the meeting space in the current WTC is in the basement and the same is true for the Shaw Centre in Edmonton and the same for the Telus centre here in Calgary. I'd also point out that the stampede roundup centre has the meeting rooms at grade BUT the meeting rooms have NO windows. It's only the gathering space that stares out onto the LRT tracks and MacLeod Trail (not really the greatest view).

halifaxboyns

Oct 15, 2010, 10:06 PM

Development must make the most of HRM’s potential

Thu, Oct 14 - 7:03 AM
The future of downtown Halifax requires all of our attention. This is not just Halifax’s downtown, it is Nova Scotia’s downtown — it represents the prosperity and vision of both our province and our city. Consequently, we must ensure that we have a downtown that provides a showcase for our unique qualities and aspirations. Halifax must embrace our collective history, engage our waterfront and express our vision for the future.

So far, Halifax has done well with our waterfront: With expansive boardwalks, public spaces and engaging developments, our waterfront has become our premier destination for tourists and locals.

This kind of quality development needs to continue throughout our downtown; however, we mustn’t accept development purely for the sake of development. New developments will make Halifax a better city only if they represent who we are, celebrating our unique location and culture while respectfully engaging their immediate environments.

Halifax must aspire to improve the quality of our downtown with an emphasis on streetscapes, open spaces, public amenities and environmental sustainability. HRMbyDesign, HRM’s Sustainable Environment Strategy and the Nova Scotia Sustainable Prosperity Act are major initiatives designed to ensure that our new developments proceed thoughtfully, humanely and without long-term harm to the environment and natural beauty that surrounds us.

The proposed Central Library, Citadel High and the Seaport Farmers’ Market are examples of projects that fulfil these community objectives. Through their progressive designs, these projects represent and express our vision as a city, while providing much-needed public infrastructure that supports a healthy and vibrant city.

Most notably, our HRMbyDesign initiatives have recently been recognized by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada as the most forward-thinking document in Canada with regard to urban design principles and initiatives.

Which brings us to the new convention centre proposal. First, we think a new convention centre is a great idea, possessing tremendous potential to inject economic and cultural vitality into the downtown core. Convention centres consistently attract large gatherings that have the potential to support other development and business. A new convention centre in downtown Halifax has the potential to bring many new visitors from around the world to enjoy the natural beauty and hospitality that we are renowned for.

In other port cities, such as Hong Kong, Liverpool, Stockholm and recently Vancouver, their convention centres have become iconic waterfront buildings that help to engage and define the downtown. Regardless of location, our new convention centre must express the uniqueness of Halifax.

Just like the convention centre, our new central library is being built with public money. The library designers are conducting extensive public consultations to ensure the best possible result and a library unique to Halifax. So why isn’t this happening with the convention centre?

This is quite troubling: We are only going to get one crack at this critical part of our cultural infrastructure and we have an obligation to ensure it is the best possible result for the future of our city.

As an idea, a new convention centre could be a win-win-win, especially if it highlights the unique strengths we possess as a city. Unfortunately, the proposed convention centre does not appear to meet these criteria. Simply put, the current proposal will ignore who we are, where we are and what we want to be. As proposed, the project is devoid of context, buried deep underground and highly compromised. Where does it begin to suggest its purpose as a convention centre or as a cultural centerpiece of our region?

We know from experience that well-intentioned, meaningful architecture and urban design can directly contribute to the success of businesses while providing significant public amenity and value. In a city our size, these opportunities are rare and must be taken full advantage of.

How can HRM and the province of Nova Scotia support a subterranean convention centre that will not see the light of day, not engage the downtown, not adhere to HRMbyDesign, not embrace what makes our city unique and not include a public design process? These critical questions need to be addressed before decisions are made that cannot be reversed.

We want to see more development in our downtown. However, we have an obligation to each other to ensure that it is appropriate and aspires to a greater vision. If we want our city to become great, we need to rely on our elected officials to act with virtue and our citizens to be heard with respect. Halifax has more potential than any other city in this country — it’s time we started reaching for it.

Submitted by Eugene Pieczonka, Keith Tufts and Andy Lynch, principals of Lydon Lynch Architects.

I do agree with some of what they are saying. I don't agree about the meeting space; there are certainly lots of examples in Canada where that's occured (Calgary - Telus Convention Centre and Stampede Round up centre and Edmonton's Shaw Convention Centre).

But certainly updating Argyle to have commercial space would help improve the street there. The Market street frontage perhaps should be where the parking and loading is done considering it's mainly the backs of residential buildings and parking lots anyway?

I totally agree with someone's previous comment about having a roof top balcony and green roof - definate pluses.

fenwick16

Oct 15, 2010, 10:39 PM

I think that Rank Inc. must do more to market their proposal. In a picture in the Chronicle Herald last week, it appears as though they do have green roofs. In the rendering below, there is commercial space along Argyle Street. One thing that is absent from the opinion letter by Lydon Lynch Architects is a statement that they are biased since they are a competitor. They also do not point out that the reason for having it built mostly underground is so that Argyle can remain open - not because it is a poor design. I know that almost everyone on this forum liked the design when it was presented. It seems to me that the process has dragged on for so long that everyone is second guessing the province's decision.

I also believe that a convention centre would have looked good on the waterfront but either there was no such proposal or no land existed that was large enough. However, so many people are complaining about the cost, so how much would an iconic building on the waterfront have cost? The Nova Centre is within easy walking distance of the Citadel Hill, Town Clock and the Public Gardens. Aren't these a few features that identify what Halifax is?

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

Buckey

Oct 15, 2010, 11:10 PM

BUT I dont know squat about design. I think it looks good. I dont like where convention center is in relation to building. I like that banquet hall that is on top or old Chateau Halifax now the delta halifax I think. I was in there for atleast 20 functions great spot for a convention room. Cant say I would be so thrilled being beside the transport trucks dropping off lettuce.

Anyway again no design expert. NOt MY Beef. VIEW LINES - I dont care. if it makes sense make it twenty stories and paint a picture of the bluenose on it and pretend its the harbour.

BUT do not ask me for my personal taxes at the provincial and federal level and my corporate taxes and my property taxes and pay for someone else mortage on a hotel complex where I get the garage for a some spinoffs for the downtown crowd. The spinoffs they all talk abouit are in a cionfined area physically and supplier throught metro.

This business case gets worse every day I look at it from every angle and I have tried and tried and tried to find some value in it. Value for RANK and a boondoggle for everyone else . The cost benefit anayisis I have done with what I can find is beyond ridiculous. Lets can this thing and move on. JOE build you hotel goodonya. IM not paying

sdm

Oct 15, 2010, 11:15 PM

fenwick16

Oct 15, 2010, 11:41 PM

This business case gets worse every day I look at it from every angle and I have tried and tried and tried to find some value in it. Value for RANK and a boondoggle for everyone else . The cost benefit anayisis I have done with what I can find is beyond ridiculous. Lets can this thing and move on. JOE build you hotel goodonya. IM not paying

Quite possibly the province and HRM will benefit financially. Would you say "I'm not going to take any money from Rank Inc." As if Nova Scotia can just sit back and take additional transfer payments forever. Ontario is now a have not province - if Nova Scotia doesn't find ways to generate income that source of extra provincial income might run out. So it would really make sense to consider the benefits instead of just saying "I'm not paying"

fenwick16

Oct 15, 2010, 11:47 PM

Very very well said.

Herein lies the issue as i see it. If there is changes to the design, i.e. public input then what happens to the bid price? There is already a condition prescedent that the government has till January to proceed or the price changes.

What would you change? Would you build it all above ground and close off Argyle Street? You can't have it both ways. And please don't say build it at the Cogswell Interchange - the government is getting opposed based on the current price. How can you propose something that would cost even more. You would have thousands of people in the HRM saying "I'm not paying!

sdm

Oct 15, 2010, 11:56 PM

What would you change? Would you build it all above ground and close off Argyle Street? You can't have it both ways. And please don't say build it at the Cogswell Interchange - the government is getting opposed based on the current price. How can you propose something that would cost even more. You would have thousands of people in the HRM saying "I'm not paying!

Fenwick, i think you are misunderstanding what i am stating.

There is people who want the design to change, of which i am not sure what the changes might be. What i am saying is if changes are to happen, i.e. the public gets its input, then i highly doubt the price will remain the same.

Therefore to me it is evident, and seems to be even with the statements of the developer, that the design is the design.

I like the cogswell site, but again that isn't in the cards right now.

someone123

Oct 16, 2010, 12:03 AM

Herein lies the issue as i see it. If there is changes to the design, i.e. public input then what happens to the bid price? There is already a condition prescedent that the government has till January to proceed or the price changes.

Sadly right now is a terrible time to be asking for public consultation and making changes to the design. This is something that should have happened at the beginning of the process (and there should have been more openness toward using Cogswell and so on). However, if this does go through HRM by Design I could see there being a number of forced improvements. It would be possible to significantly improve upon this design without completely changing it and perhaps without significantly changing the costs.

Not sure about the layout criticisms since I have not seen floor plans. The basement complaint is not valid for some kinds of convention space - even in above ground facilities there are normally no views or natural light. For some of the lobby areas and dining areas and so on it is definitely nicer to have the views although you probably don't want thousands of people having to take elevators or multiple flights of stairs.

fenwick16

Oct 16, 2010, 12:09 AM

Fenwick, i think you are misunderstanding what i am stating.

There is people who want the design to change, of which i am not sure what the changes might be. What i am saying is if changes are to happen, i.e. the public gets its input, then i highly doubt the price will remain the same.

Therefore to me it is evident, and seems to be even with the statements of the developer, that the design is the design.

I like the cogswell site, but again that isn't in the cards right now.

You are right, I didn't take the time to read your post carefully enough. However, I think we all know that it will be very difficult to get a consensus.

What bothers me the most are the payment terms and it seems to be getting very little attention in the media. The province and HRM would save many millions of dollars by paying as construction proceeds (even if the interest savings that are lost on paying sooner than 2014 is taken into account). In the short term the province and HRM will save money, but in the long term they will lose far more. Even Premier Dexter has stated that there is a real cost to delaying the payments, in an interview with the allnovascotia.com.

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 12:17 AM

Quite possibly the province and HRM will benefit financially. Would you say "I'm not going to take any money from Rank Inc." As if Nova Scotia can just sit back and take additional transfer payments forever. Ontario is now a have not province - if Nova Scotia doesn't find ways to generate income that source of extra provincial income might run out. So it would really make sense to consider the benefits instead of just saying "I'm not paying"

Fen I am working a new business plan now for a new veture. I have bad news It creates on full time job and one part time job. so too the point. what exactly is ranks risk versus reward here versus the public risk versus reward. not even close.

There is NO EXTRA income being generated here. These numbers are inflated and twisted and full of hype. This looks like a penny stock promotion to get folks to buy in. Once you peel back a layer or two it breaks down. I heard even ferguson was waflling on jobs on radio today. I am convinced the jobs number even divided by ten to equate to annual jobs in NOT FTEs.

IF Ontario is a have not I want NOT. My gawd the place is booming 1000s of homes being built warehouses buildings. I was in awe. And guess what Noone sucking the public TIT. This deal stinks like a corpse - and more rank every day.

I have read every report and every single document on this that is available. If I find out Deloitte's accountant on anylevel I will absilutely go ballistic

fenwick16

Oct 16, 2010, 12:28 AM

Fen I am working a new business plan now for a new veture. I have bad news It creates on full time job and one part time job. so too the point. what exactly is ranks risk versus reward here versus the public risk versus reward. not even close.

There is NO EXTRA income being generated here. These numbers are inflated and twisted and full of hype. This looks like a penny stock promotion to get folks to buy in. Once you peel back a layer or two it breaks down. I heard even ferguson was waflling on jobs on radio today. I am convinced the jobs number even divided by ten to equate to annual jobs in NOT FTEs.

IF Ontario is a have not I want NOT. My gawd the place is booming 1000s of homes being built warehouses buildings. I was in awe. And guess what Noone sucking the public TIT. This deal stinks like a corpse - and more rank every day.

I have read every report and every single document on this that is available. If I find out Deloitte's accountant on anylevel I will absilutely go ballistic

This is pointless; everything that you say is wrong. Would your name be Bruce?

sdm

Oct 16, 2010, 12:37 AM

You are right, I didn't take the time to read your post carefully enough. However, I think we all know that it will be very difficult to get a consensus.

.

Hey no problem Fenwick.

One thing that was stated to me today was how this deal now being conditional on the existing trade centre being taken over by the city is a setup by Dexter to maintain that he is pro development as many consider the city to take on the existing centre to be a big hit to the city.

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 12:40 AM

Keith P.

Oct 16, 2010, 12:46 AM

Any criticism by Andy Lynch that uses Citadel High as a shining example of good architecture cannot be taken seriously.

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 12:46 AM

he actually requested to prsent to council tuesday night but response was written only per agenda. I am against this thing he is my worst ally LOL the old house front #2. Im a money guy I hate pissing it away. WE all may as well line up on argyle and get our money peed all over us

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 12:48 AM

Any criticism by Andy Lynch that uses Citadel High as a shining example of good architecture cannot be taken seriously.

Is he a losing bidder on the design side of work? IF so he is not objective

fenwick16

Oct 16, 2010, 12:51 AM

Hey no problem Fenwick.

One thing that was stated to me today was how this deal now being conditional on the existing trade centre being taken over by the city is a setup by Dexter to maintain that he is pro development as many consider the city to take on the existing centre to be a big hit to the city.

I heard that all the NDP wants is a land swap? Sounds like a good deal especially since the city won't get to take it until 2014. It will be occupied by the WTCC until the new convention centre opens.

Before you were counting on the federal government turning the NDP down as an excuse for them to get out of the deal. Now you are just grasping at straws.

sdm

Oct 16, 2010, 1:06 AM

I heard that all the NDP wants is a land swap? Sounds like a good deal especially since the city won't get to take it until 2014. It will be occupied by the WTCC until the new convention centre opens.

Before you were counting on the federal government turning the NDP down as an excuse for them to get out of the deal. Now you are just grasping at straws.

One of the land swaps that is being discussed is a revenue producing one, therefore the city gives up a revenue stream to take on a non producing review stream.

Secondly, yes i am still concerned the Federal money will get shot down.

You are very defensive.

So lets see here, question for you. Why do you think the total federal contribution is 47 million and due at completion of the centre?

Empire

Oct 16, 2010, 1:24 AM

LOve the folks who decide To just throw out the BRUCE or heritage crap stuff at anyone who decides to think for themselves. That is such complete bullshit. There is nothing worng with walking away from a deal. This is a good deal for RANK. They have a 25 year revenue stream - we have a 25 year cost stream and we pay for it 3 times if you opwn a home in the city. If you own a business you pay 4 times or more. and we will pay like the bridges forever. Lets stop spending tax dollars on foolish ventures

Why do you sound like the quintessential Nova Scotia taxpayer?
Let me explain......anything that has potential to further the Province, develop buisness alliances or actually have an ROI must be a bad deal or the developer has a deal to die for. Get "REAL", this province is sinking because of an attitude that says let's spend tax dollars that we don't have on roads, schools, fire depts., wharves, swamp land or perhaps something that will benefit thousands like Sydney Steel. Have you calculated the HST on 25 years of additional goods and services for the Nova Centre?

fenwick16

Oct 16, 2010, 1:29 AM

So lets see here, question for you. Why do you think the total federal contribution is 47 million and due at completion of the centre?

I can see that math isn't your strong point, sdm. Of course, you probably think it some conspiracy when in fact it is just basic algebra. What is ($159 million - $19 million) divided by 3 rounded to the next highest integer? If you don't know where these numbers are coming from, then read the news.

sdm

Oct 16, 2010, 1:30 AM

I can see that math isn't your strong point. Of course you probably think it some conspiracy when in fact it is just basic algebra.

Ok, so now you resort to personal attacks to make you feel better. Even then you still don't answer the question, probably because you don't now the answer.

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 1:33 AM

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 1:38 AM

I can see that math isn't your strong point, sdm. Of course, you probably think it some conspiracy when in fact it is just basic algebra. What is ($159 million - $19 million) divided by 3 rounded to the next highest integer? If you don't know where these numbers are coming from, then read the news.

NO math isnt my strong point LOLOLOL so funny it is sad. sorry I will not drink the koolaid of my colleagues in Business. Likely why I dont mix well with the chamber asskissers. Sorry I like thinking all by myself.

No math - yeah I likely have no degrees or business degrees or any experience in Finance. I am probalbly just some liberal arts washed up weed smoking beatnik driving my 25 year old bicyle to the my tenured professor job daily having never fully recovered from Woodstock wishing for a simply time

EDIT I thought that math shot was at me LOLLOLOLOL sorry - hell KP called me smart the other day and that hurt my feelings too

fenwick16

Oct 16, 2010, 1:38 AM

Ok, so now you resort to personal attacks to make you feel better. Even then you still don't answer the question, probably because you don't now the answer.

ok, I edited my post so read it again (I gave you a few hints, plus read the news - it is all in there). You and your friends are destroying the city with negativism and half-truths.

sdm

Oct 16, 2010, 1:41 AM

ok, I edited my post so read it again (I gave you a few hints, plus read the news - it is all in there). You and your friends are destroying the city with negativism and half-truths.

If thats what you think, so be it. But i know for one that with the developments i've been a part of in the city i find that statement very insulting. If you care to know, where do you think the equity requirement for financing is coming from Fenwick?

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 1:43 AM

what about that theory the NDP knows this will not fly and are pushing it knowing it will die and then have business behind them because they tried. a Bluff

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 1:45 AM

ok, I edited my post so read it again (I gave you a few hints, plus read the news - it is all in there). You and your friends are destroying the city with negativism and half-truths.

and that prsentation with the jobs and the magical numbers are not half truths. They are full out misleading hype bullshit is what it all is

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 1:49 AM

Fenwick - given we are so daft with numbers with our fine arts degrees and such. tell me how many jobs at the WTCC now and how many with the new one?

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 2:12 AM

Dexter ends the week with budget cuts announcement. Darrell you win. Im tapping out. I give you win. build his hotel - Ill pay and my neighbor will pay. lots of great server and housekeeping jobs great work cut services.

awesome for the resteraunt guys downtown. the only spinoff out of this whole thing is my HEAD spinning off

fenwick16

Oct 16, 2010, 2:30 AM

If thats what you think, so be it. But i know for one that with the developments i've been a part of in the city i find that statement very insulting. If you care to know, where do you think the equity requirement for financing is coming from Fenwick?

If you won't read what I reply then why not read this article in the allnovascotia.com printed on October 14, 2010 - "Province Vows to Pay for Convention Centre - But How?" I think that the author, Paul McLeod explained it very well with several quotes from the Premier.

It bothers me that you are so intent on stopping this convention centre that you won't take the time to consider the fact that the province and HRM would be paying 10's of millions of dollars more over 25 years than they would if they paid in lump sum payments over the 3 - 4 years construction period. This is why the federal government will only pay $46.7 million of the cost because (quoted from the allnovascotia.com article):

The federal government has shown no interest in long-term financing. Under the existing plan it would kick in a one-time payment of $46.7 million

In the paragraph before the one quoted above, Premier Dexter stated:

... the cost in the way of financing it is a real cost it's not an imaginary one. Delaying the receipt of those lease payments to a particular date has an associated cost of money that goes along with it.

I typed these quotes in by hand. Premier Dexter is stating the truth here -it will cost much more by waiting until 2014 to start the payments.

The financial deal is due to be presented to the HRM council on Oct 19 2010, so I assume a lot more details will be released at that time. Hopefully the province and HRM will decide not to wait until 2014 to start payments.

And regarding Buckey's concerns about not owning anything after 25 years, why don't you contact your local MLA and ask why not? For Buckey, I am posting a link to this article since it has no inflated job numbers - http://www.canadianbusinessjournal.ca/business_news/canadian_business_news/1015_halifax_pushing_for_game-changer_convention_centre_10.html. Have faith in Halifax and province of Nova Scotia - of course people will want to go there and once they have been there they will want to return.

Empire

Oct 16, 2010, 2:46 AM

what about that theory the NDP knows this will not fly and are pushing it knowing it will die and then have business behind them because they tried. a Bluff

The NDP aren't that smart.

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 2:50 AM

fen in terms of payment options sadly I am now too reliant on compueters and that silly NPV and related funstions to actually think with my own brain about the different financing options so I will assume you are bang on we are paying more by waiting because we actually pay the financing costs.

On financing, Has Rank secured financing even if conditional on the deal going through? His portion is still a huge chunk of money. Given the no overrun promises and no payments until completeion with completeion targets and penalties I say Ill pay the extra IF I was endorsing this. I am still far far away from endorsing this.

I have no idea why in the last few years I all of a sudden gave a shit about anything tax related. I stilldont know squat about politics or as I stated about design and buildings etc.

I cannot even explain why this project eats at me. I know its the numbers and the numbers and the numbers. I amnot in this industry and never have been so no sour grapes here or anything on lost opportunities. The CC will have no impact on me yeah or hey except my expected increase in taxes. Two weeks from today I will pay a few grand online to the city for my bi annual tax payment and mnaybe I should chrish it as in ten years what will it be?

This is too big too much risk and for too little reward. This has penny stock written allover it. A lot of hype and twisted number and great projections and using MY MONEY. and like allpenny stocks the stakeholder gets screwed.

Buckey

Oct 16, 2010, 2:52 AM

The NDP aren't that smart.

Thanks for that First time I smiled in an hour:cheers:

I needed that as I really have been angry the last hour over this topic and the late week spending cuts announcements.

Empire

Oct 16, 2010, 3:29 AM

The numbers do not pan out for a new versus existing the incremental revenue versus the incremental costs are flawed and the net ROI is negative is so many ways.

Are we trying to give Ramia as much money in this flawed P3 deal as we have the armoyans and others?

The jobs number is so messed up it is silly. There si no 27,000 or 2,700 jobs. There are at best 120 FTEs at all of TCL right now. we spend 3 Million a year on the place and yes lots of spinoffs no argument - over estimated as many delegates local.

remember even current TCL spinoff numbers are subjective ther truly are not measurable they are best guesses. anyway back to the JOBS - I say this creates 200 new FTEs at best and we fund a great chunk of a private hotel.

I ask everyone - look at the pictures. look at two flors and think - its a 500 million building and we finance and pay for 1/3 of it and in 25 years we have nothing. does 2 floors look like even 1/3rd.

I have cut this side of pork 8 different directions. there are maggots on every cut. show me some more meat - lets drill down on these numbers - how did they roll up this way.

I will measure this forever. I want to no exactly where those jobs are beog created I want to measure and track it.

This is where you should be investing your "Hard" earned tax $$$$$$ Let's hope it isn't a White Elephant............
I know you think that your tax dollars mean something in your neighbourhood....sidewalks, wading pool, improvements to the xxxhall etc. but that is just not the case.

Seaside gets $16.4M for rural web
Taxpayers buy $4M stake in company, with the remainder in loans
Last Updated: Friday, October 15, 2010 | 8:23 AM AT Comments21Recommend9.
CBC News
Nova Scotia has extended a $16.4-million lifeline to Seaside Communications so it can finish its broadband hookup in Cape Breton and the northern mainland.

'I'm confident … that it is money well spent.'
—Bill Estabrooks, acting ministerThe province bought a $4-million stake in the technology company, the government announced Thursday.

The rest of the money is in the form of loans. Under the deal, $5 million must be repaid as soon as Seaside receives its last instalment from the province for delivering high-speed internet service to the nine northern counties.

"They've got 93 per cent coverage and we're looking at getting it up there as close to 100 per cent as possible," said Bill Estabrooks, acting minister of rural and economic development.

"This is going to be an added boost for them, and they're going to meet that demand, and I'm confident in the fact that it is money well spent."

In 2007, Seaside, EastLink and OmniGlobe Networks were hired to bring broadband to rural Nova Scotia. The federal and provincial governments invested $35 million, while Seaside and EastLink put up another $40 million.

They were supposed to finish the job by January, but that deadline was pushed back.

A government spokesperson said the province is aware of "several hundred" people living in challenging geographic locations who are still waiting for their connection through Seaside or EastLink.

Parker Donham, a spokesman for Seaside, said the remaining residents are in areas that are difficult to reach. He said the company expects to have its network completed by the end of the year.

All the companies have penalty clauses, but the province says no decision has been made on whether they will be charged a late fee.

The $16.4 million comes from the cabinet-controlled Industrial Expansion Fund.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/10/15/ns-seaside-internet-loan.html#ixzz12UMPiYhY

someone123

Oct 16, 2010, 6:57 AM

I ask everyone - look at the pictures. look at two flors and think - its a 500 million building and we finance and pay for 1/3 of it and in 25 years we have nothing. does 2 floors look like even 1/3rd.

Isn't it a little weird to focus on ownership at the end of the 25 year period when currently they are having trouble figuring out what to do with the existing 30 year old convention centre?

I also don't have a huge amount of trouble believing that the cost reflects the price of building the convention space. The square footage of the bottom is large (160,000+ plus parking spaces and so on) and requires things like a large column-free ballroom with high ceilings. That is much more expensive than a standard floor of office or hotel. It's also worth remembering that the government did compare this bid to a shadow bid.

fenwick16

Oct 16, 2010, 9:58 AM

I did a spreadsheet of the costs that I got from various newspaper stories. The main numbers came from the initial Premier Dexter news conference reported by CBC - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/10/06/ns-halifax-convention-centre-jobs.html . Another story with financing numbers is this one - http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/convention-centre-figures-released/4792 . I didn't have to use many assumptions - just the payment schedule if the province decides to pay-as-the construction-proceeds (option-A) versus putting off the payments until 2014 and then financing it at 6.9% through Rank Inc (option-B). This is how I arrived at the numbers:

If the NDP, HRM and Federal government pay the construction fees as they go then at 1/3 each (with no interim financing charge of $19 million since that is the amount for delaying all payments until 2014) then it will be $46.7 million dollars each ($140 million/3 = $46.7 million each). This is stated in the media, just in different words.
Payment Option A - Pay as construction proceeds
1) I had to estimate the payment schedule (it shouldn't be 100% up-front because even expensive projects aren't funded that way). I would guess something like:
* 30% up-front, x $46.7 million each (March 2011) = $14.01 million each
* 30% more at the 50% completion date (say September 2012) = $14.01 million each
* 30% more at the 80% completion date (say September 2013) = $14.01 million each
* the final 10% when it is 100% complete (say March 2014) = $4.67 million each
PLUS: $2.9 million (HRM & NS combined) or $1.45 million each, every year for 25 years starting in 2014.

Payment Option B - First Payment March 2014 at 100% complete
Federal government $46.7 million lump sum payment.
Province + HRM - $10.2 million per year for 25 years
PLUS: $2.9 million (HRM & NS combined) every year for 25 years starting in 2014.

Over a period of 25 years plus the 3 years construction period, the province and HRM will pay almost double the cost if they put off payments until 2014 (in the table, I have the first capital lease yearly payment in 2015 but it would likely be spread over the first year starting in 2014). One reason that the province and HRM will be paying so much more money is because of the relatively high long term interest rate of 6.9% plus 19 million interim financing through Rank Inc. versus the 4.7% 30 year bond rate that NS can currently get - http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/convention-centre-figures-released/4792 .

PS: For the table below: These are my tabulated numbers based on several media reports and (in the case of option-A) are based on my estimates of the construction payment terms and milestones as stated above. Option-B details come directly from media reports. I support the convention centre but shouldn't the NDP select the cheapest option?
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/5489/conventioncostoptions.jpg