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

[terrynorthend]

Definitely. I was shocked today when I heard that on the radio.

I agree. Now I'm not sure that I have all the details on what they are asking (heck, aside from the radio report, I have NO details), but one of the things that I had heard and was advocating is that the tax revenue will offset HRM's portion of the lease costs. Seems like messages are changing already.

[someone123]

The way this process works is that every party asks for whatever they think the others will give. Rank wants tons of government money and the province wants the HRM to pay for as much as possible. The HRM will need to push back a little in order to get a fair deal.

The tax issue mostly sounds like accounting to me. The overall cost can be the same whether or not Rank pays taxes depending on the operating fees and upfront cost. What's important is simply that the full costs are taken into account.

[fenwick16]

For once (in terms of Regional Council); I agree with you fully fenwick. Regional Council should be given full thumbs up on how they approached it and the fact the deal is wrong.

There is no doubt in my mind that the resounding majority of council support the project and believe it's good - the deal is wrong and the fact the province wants them to buy the old centre AND exempt the new one from property taxes.

Personally, if I had been on council I wouldn't have even put a motion to evaluate the proposal cost - I would've jumped in with a motion to abandon the project. I guess it's probably best that staff review it though - but I'm not impressed. I now have a total lack of trust to this developer; I think he's basically trying to get a building for nothing. I can understand the NS/HRM governments contributing for the convention centre component - but not the whole building and where does he get off not paying taxes?!

It wasn't the developer asking for a tax exemption, it was the province. A couple of the councillors felt that the NDP government was purposely trying to make the HRM council look like the bad guys by offering a deal that they couldn't accept. I don't know where you got this following idea from regarding Rank Inc. "I think he's basically trying to get a building for nothing." There was no mention of Rank Inc. asking for an exemption on the hotel and office sections, based on what the councillors stated, this was not requested. I copied the "ask" from the NDP (it is not from Rank Inc.) and posted below.

I guess that we should go back to not agreeing (your first sentence sounded promising but it sounds like deep-down you are an NDP supporter no matter what they do). I am not prepared to demonize Rank Inc., I am leaning towards demonizing the NPD provincial government. Rank Inc. just answered a Request For Proposals they didn't force this on the NDP or the previous Conservative government (which requested it).

PS: The request that the HRM take over the current WTCC didn't seem to be an unduly request by Mayor Kelly (who spoke to Premier Dexter). Councillor Hendsbee (shown live on Haligonia.ca) even stated that it had been talked about previously amongst the councillors. The purchase terms haven't been decided on - whether it be a land swap or some other deal (it might be a very good deal for the HRM). In my opinion, if the HRM ever wants to build a larger Metro Centre II then it would be good for them to own the current WTCC. A 15,000 seat new Metro Centre would fit there very nicely (refer to the image at the end of this post). In the meantime Mayor Kelly has spoken about putting more washrooms in the Metro Centre by using the space in the WTCC (I can't find a source but I read it several days ago).

(source: screen captive from Haligonia.ca live feed)
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2666/cccostsscreenshot.jpg


Below is an image that I posted previously of how the 15,000 Winnipeg MTS Centre (hockey arena) would fit on the Metro Centre/WTCC superblock.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9383/mtsoverhalifaxmetrocent.jpg

[fenwick16]

I can understand the NS/HRM governments contributing for the convention centre component - but not the whole building and where does he get off not paying taxes?!

I don't want to start posting multiple times but if you look at the Provincial Request sheet (image posted previously) Rank Inc. is only asking for $47 million of the 3 levels of government (the actual construction cost, if you work it out, is $140 million = $119 million construction cost plus $21 million design cost, or $46.7 million x 3). This is significantly less than the shadow bid that was commissioned by the NDP. The person who presented the Provincial Request stated that the $59 million dollar amount for the provincial government and HRM, as reported by the media, was not the actual amount being requested.

PS: The HRM staff will present financial alternatives on November 9 2010 and make recommendations at that time. I will stop posting about the C word until then.

[fenwick16]

double post

[DigitalNinja]

I really wish that the governments could cooperate on major projects like this. Trying to rip eachother of is counterproductive, and I have no idea why people elect officials who do this... I am expressing my anti NDP ideas here, and I hate them, need to get them outa there!
Anyway my point of view, we need some business men/women to be elected to have some concept of how to properly negotiate.
I would love to see this center go through... But I'm not to sure it will anymore, I guess we will see come November.

[Buckey]

WE really need to get weaned off the government TIT in NS. Its a vicious cycle of gov money leading to little to no tax revenue leading to nothing. I think the entire EOI needs to be scrapped and started from scratch because as best as I can gather from the sketchy info RANK won the EOI as he had land to offer . Maybe his overall proposal was better than Hardman with a proposal or taking HRM land - was it better. Obviously HRM council was a solid BRICK wall maybe we need to take a step back.

This started to have some CWF aura with the last minute 1.2 MM tax concession request. HRM taxpayers are paying triple for this HRM FED and provincial. Lets make sure we do it right and if that means stepping back then lets make sure its the right deal. Just like TIger when a camera snaps in his backswing - sometimes it is better just to stop and step back and start the process again and smash it down the middle.

However I am happy with the current pushback. Congrats to HRM council. They were unanimous

[worldlyhaligonian]

http://www.biztradeshows.com/

[worldlyhaligonian]

WE really need to get weaned off the government TIT in NS. Its a vicious cycle of gov money leading to little to no tax revenue leading to nothing. I think the entire EOI needs to be scrapped and started from scratch because as best as I can gather from the sketchy info RANK won the EOI as he had land to offer . Maybe his overall proposal was better than Hardman with a proposal or taking HRM land - was it better. Obviously HRM council was a solid BRICK wall maybe we need to take a step back.

This started to have some CWF aura with the last minute 1.2 MM tax concession request. HRM taxpayers are paying triple for this HRM FED and provincial. Lets make sure we do it right and if that means stepping back then lets make sure its the right deal. Just like TIger when a camera snaps in his backswing - sometimes it is better just to stop and step back and start the process again and smash it down the middle.

However I am happy with the current pushback. Congrats to HRM council. They were unanimous

Whatever man, HRM is hardly getting a bad deal. I don't know why everybody thinks a project like this is soo sketchy, yet we are spending 20, 30, 40 million on other rinky dink projects with zero transparency... and even worse, no economic spinoffs or large federal/prov funding. We could have built a couple of convention centres by now with all the money wasted on other crap.

You have got to be kidding me. I'm not trying to get into the costs as digital said. The benefits far outweigh any other project built because of the magnitude of funding and the non-spinoff benefits.

I don't even think a middle eastern or asian investor would think about investing in Nova Scotia if they saw our current setup.

People that are against this know nothing about how international business works.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I'm done posting in this thread... I'll be laughing when some smaller city in Quebec or out west builds a trade centre and steals all of the business from us if we don't build it.

Let's not get in the way of ourselves.

[Empire]

#9 of The Provincial Request is interesting.

9. Province exempt from property tax on CC portion.

Why would the Province pay property tax on a building they are leasing?

[Buckey]

Sorrry worldly, I didnt use my Urban planning Major and am I ever glad I didnt. I have worked in business my whole life. Your comments on the benefits outweighing the costs is based on what? certainly not financials. This is a apathetic P3 deal. I am looking at this as if I am paying it. I am looking at this as if I am the only taxpayer and I'd rather open a resteraunt and an Airline than do this deal.

are not Nova Scotian taxpayers tired of making millionaires billionaires? I AM. We need a lot more transparency on full costs - the informaton to date is an embarrasement and good on HRM to push back. The deal sucks in so many ways. The jobs numbers have no basis and are misreported.

Rah rah rah lets build it and cross our fingers doesnt work for me. This is my money 5 times over and I will not stand back and let it get pissed away so my 5 taxes will increase.

This is the CWG coverup on costs and a whole lot more.

[fenwick16]

You seem to like extremes Buckey. I don't really agree with you. It is one thing to have concerns and raise them but your concerns are just too extremely against. Now you are just starting to sound like Bruce - its my money and I am not spending any ...

Likewise with Halifaxboyns - the two of you are distorting the facts and feeding off one another. There was no mention of a tax exemption being requested by Rank Inc. but you are stating that they want people to pay the whole cost. You are starting to soundly extremely anti-development and are trashing a developer unfairly. When the two of you start ranting then I switch to being 100% in favour of the Nova Centre no matter what ...

Neither of you sound reasonable; you are both ranting without giving sound reasons. I get the feeling that you are both just trying to fool people. The P3 rant is just annoying Buckey - if you are really in business then why do you keep ranting against a program (P3) that is meant to encourage private-public funding arrangements? Surely you can't be arguing that the government is much better at construction projects than private developers. Here is a forum for both of you where you can go and ignore the facts and everybody sounds like Buckey - very annoying - http://www.reality-check.ca/forum.php

[halifaxboyns]

Fenwick - i'm not distorting the facts; as I've said before and I will say again - the economics part is confusing me and I'm not getting it. I did read your post though and thanks for the clarification.

I'm not so upset if the tax exemption is the CC portion only. From the way it was sounding (I didn't watch the whole thing) it was the whole building - which I would definately say no too.

I don't really understand or grasp the payment plan or economics; I'm lucky I can balance my cheque book lol!

However; I don't think it's fair to bash someone (who has freely admitted he (me) doesn't understand all the financial details) for getting something wrong.
That's nice you want to be in favour of it no matter what if I'm wrong; I want to be in favour of this too. But I also want to make sure that HRM and Nova Scotia is getting a good deal. The last thing I want to hear for the next 10 years is all the people against this say 'I told you so'.

[fenwick16]

Fenwick - i'm not distorting the facts; as I've said before and I will say again - the economics part is confusing me and I'm not getting it. I did read your post though and thanks for the clarification.

I'm not so upset if the tax exemption is the CC portion only. From the way it was sounding (I didn't watch the whole thing) it was the whole building - which I would definately say no too.

I don't really understand or grasp the payment plan or economics; I'm lucky I can balance my cheque book lol!

However; I don't think it's fair to bash someone (who has freely admitted he (me) doesn't understand all the financial details) for getting something wrong.
That's nice you want to be in favour of it no matter what if I'm wrong; I want to be in favour of this too. But I also want to make sure that HRM and Nova Scotia is getting a good deal. The last thing I want to hear for the next 10 years is all the people against this say 'I told you so'.

Good points! I apologize for categorizing you as anti-development - you actually realize the importance of cost. People on this forum have stated that they are tired of anything financial - this is bizarre in my opinion, since this project might get thrown out because of such a lack of scrutiny by the public. The entire reason that this project appears to be so expensive is because the NDP is thinking of accepting a no-payment until 2014 deal at 6.9%. I am not the only one who has noticed the much higher than normal interest rate (Nova Scotia can get 30 year bonds at about 4.7%). Rank Inc. should not be blamed for this - this is entirely political on the part of the NDP (at least Premier Dexter has been honest and pointed out the high cost involved with taking such a deal as quoted in allnovascotia.com on Oct 14/2010, "Province vows to pay for Convention Centre - But How". Councillor Hendsbee mentioned it today at the HRM council meeting :tup: :tup: ).

These are the facts: 1) The cost of the convention Centre came in at $140 million which was much less than the NDP shadow bid
2) The annual operating cost came in significantly less than other convention centres which the shadow bid cost was based on.
(the source for points 1 and 2 are on page 22/36 of this report - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf )

[Buckey]

You seem to like extremes Buckey. I don't really agree with you. It is one thing to have concerns and raise them but your concerns are just too extremely against. Now you are just starting to sound like Bruce - its my money and I am not spending any ...

Likewise with Halifaxboyns - the two of you are distorting the facts and feeding off one another. There was no mention of a tax exemption being requested by Rank Inc. but you are stating that they want people to pay the whole cost. You are starting to soundly extremely anti-development and are trashing a developer unfairly. When the two of you start ranting then I switch to being 100% in favour of the Nova Centre no matter what ...

Neither of you sound reasonable; you are both ranting without giving sound reasons. I get the feeling that you are both just trying to fool people. The P3 rant is just annoying Buckey - if you are really in business then why do you keep ranting against a program (P3) that is meant to encourage private-public funding arrangements? Surely you can't be arguing that the government is much better at construction projects than private developers. Here is a forum for both of you where you can go and ignore the facts and everybody sounds like Buckey - very annoying - http://www.reality-check.ca/forum.php

ILl edit this. I have said all along I like development and want it and we need it and I love seeing it. Ill take the dirt and dust for the long term good. I was jumped on by folks here as being abeatnik antidevelopment whack job. NOt so. Just someone who doesnt like fuzzy math, surprises and a hype sales pitch. It appears as if 22 councillors wholeheartedly agreed with me. The BD comparisons are ridiculous and insulting. I am not "BUILD THIS AT ALL COST" and pay for it later. The whole dont pay a cent til 2014 doesnt work for me. LONG term is the way I look at everything. I didnt like the deal Monday and I hate it now. Start over back at the EOI stage. WE need to take a complete clean cut at this. Let me transparent and do it right.

EDIT so as not to clog up thread and after Fens post: If the proposal was an assignment I was marking I would simply mark on it - "D- please who your work" I see the final answer but need to see a lot more details as right now they are iffy

[fenwick16]

One post only - I live in Ontario and most people from Ontario probably would prefer Halifax over Ottawa. Even though Ottawa is a very interesting city and the Nation's Capital, it is no great treat for people from Toronto to go to a convention in Ottawa which is a city they have probably been to many times before. I think that it was CAO Anstey (spelling?) who stated Halifax was one of the most popular destinations for the Canadian Bar Association but they no longer come to the HRM because the current WTCC doesn't meet their requirements. Also mentioned was an Engineering Association (I am not sure which one) which will be passing over Halifax in the future because the HRM wasn't able to host their exhibits which is an important part of most conventions. (They will go to New Brunswick the next time that they come to Atlantic Canada).

Although you think that you are being impartial and that you are looking at things rationally, you have in fact adopted a very negative and defeatist attitude towards Halifax and Nova Scotia. I and many others feel strongly that Halifax will be very successful - this isn't wishful thinking as you seem to think; many people throughout Canada actually enjoy visiting the province of Nova Scotia.

[Jonovision]

I have not been following this thread much lately, just because it has been too much for me to read and it seems the same things are said over and over.

However, I did watch council yesterday afternoon and was very happy with their performance for the most part. I thought they were level headed and cool and asked good questions. I especially liked how some of them, including Sloane was asking Scott Ferguson to debunk some of the myths being used to fight against the new centre. ie that all centres are essentially a black box and it does not matter if it is underground or not, the only part that matters is the entrance, and that convention centre business in Canada is indeed doing quite well.

I do not like the ask from the province, but like some of the Councillors stated, it is only the first ask. Yes, it was not gone about the right way, but it is only the beginning of negotiations and not all is lost. I think if the two governments can work together that we will see this get built.

[halifaxboyns]

The HRM website now has a section on the convention centre presentation. The presentation they made is also available here (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/101019cow3pres.pdf).

[Keith P.]

Having had considerable experience dealing with the province -- and knowing the TIR staffer who made the presentation at the news conference last week -- I am not at all surprised by the provincial position. However, I expect that a deal will eventually get done. The province always starts with a ridiculous position and then caves. And while that particular staffer can be a difficult person to deal with sometimes due to arrogance, she is not the final authority in this.

One thing I do not know and heard nobody ask: does the existing WTCC pay property tax?

[halifaxboyns]

Having had considerable experience dealing with the province -- and knowing the TIR staffer who made the presentation at the news conference last week -- I am not at all surprised by the provincial position. However, I expect that a deal will eventually get done. The province always starts with a ridiculous position and then caves. And while that particular staffer can be a difficult person to deal with sometimes due to arrogance, she is not the final authority in this.

One thing I do not know and heard nobody ask: does the existing WTCC pay property tax?

I heard that part of the presentation and I clearly recall them saying it is; although I shortly after that turned it off because I was at work. So I wasn't clear if they meant the existing building or the building plus convention centre.

From a tax formula perspective; if it's the former - they could exclude a percentage for the convention centre. So take that for what it's worth.

[fenwick16]

I heard that part of the presentation and I clearly recall them saying it is; although I shortly after that turned it off because I was at work. So I wasn't clear if they meant the existing building or the building plus convention centre.

From a tax formula perspective; if it's the former - they could exclude a percentage for the convention centre. So take that for what it's worth.

That is what I remember hearing also (that the current WTCC does pay property tax). Who owns the Metro Centre - the province or HRM? I know that the province owns the WTCC portion, but I assume that The Metro Centre is owned by HRM - is this correct?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Sorrry worldly, I didnt use my Urban planning Major and am I ever glad I didnt. I have worked in business my whole life. Your comments on the benefits outweighing the costs is based on what? certainly not financials. This is a apathetic P3 deal. I am looking at this as if I am paying it. I am looking at this as if I am the only taxpayer and I'd rather open a resteraunt and an Airline than do this deal.

are not Nova Scotian taxpayers tired of making millionaires billionaires? I AM. We need a lot more transparency on full costs - the informaton to date is an embarrasement and good on HRM to push back. The deal sucks in so many ways. The jobs numbers have no basis and are misreported.

Rah rah rah lets build it and cross our fingers doesnt work for me. This is my money 5 times over and I will not stand back and let it get pissed away so my 5 taxes will increase.

This is the CWG coverup on costs and a whole lot more.

Ok, but most P3 projects are like this or worse! You have totally bought into what the obstructionists are putting out there. I even see people for the trade centre actually addressing some of this bogus information as if its real!

You are soo hung up on the fact that a few people will make a ton of money off this development, but I'm sorry to tell you that's how it is in Canada... especially in the maritimes.

Look at Ottawa, do you think they would have any business activity there if it weren't for the proximity of government?

Or look at the US model... where you have companies like Goldman Sachs throwing up a huge HQ based upon government bailouts because they figured they could screw everybody and get away with it. I'll take a quasi transparent P3 over that any day. Those taxpayers had zero choice and will have no return whatsoever.

Do you know how convention centre's in europe, the middle-east, and asia are built? Most of them through P3.

There IS a demand for conventions and trade shows... to say that there isn't is false information. Obviously the recession has had an impact, but increasing at a decreasing rate is different than stagnation.

Furthermore, its not even that much money when you look at the breakdown! In totally we are looking at like $500 million... peanuts when you talk about how much our government wastes on roads in areas with populations smaller than one neighborhood in Halifax.

Rank and TCL will benefit, but that isn't the point. Nova Scotian industry will be able to effectively present itself at trade shows and conventions that will be larger and have more pull from an international perspective. I have seen huge sales and MOUs signed at larger scale events all over the world. Nobody is coming to the shitty convention centre we have now, but its a much easier sell if we have a NEWER, BIGGER space.

I think everybody ignores the export marketing side of things because the misconception is evil big business instead of SME development. The whole purpose of this is to not only diversify our commercial and industrial base, but also to grow the total number of businesses. This is how we get off the government tit, but its generally impossible to foster a business environment without the right venue.

Being against a convention centre is like having no boardroom in your office, its rediculous.

Everything I'm saying is true... I know you feel like you are paying for this, but its the equivalent of university in Canada... we are getting a huge deal because its heavily federally and provincially funded.

I don't have kids, so why should my taxes go toward schools. I just don't get what you are trying to say.

The federal/provincial funding acts like a bonus if you plot the amortization of this project over time. That alone makes it worth while. We need more business subsidization of this type and not just ACOA loans to companies with no strings attached that don't get paid back.

Using a Montreal Olympics analogy just doesn't cut it.

[Empire]

What about all the gov money pumped into Michelin (3 plants), Stora Enso, Bowater and millions spent on thousands of acres of wilderness for nature preserves. What about the `TAXPAYERS" 40 million for the cheap 4plex in Bedford. RIM got $19 million in tax rebates to set up shop and the fishery gets millions every year. The list goes on and on and on....BUckey wake up.. it is all about job creation. The feds and province rake in $$$ from each job created in terms of income tax and HST from these new spenders.

Pierre Trudeau once said that if Atlantic Canada was a business we would be bankrupt. We rely on federal transfer payments to survive and the only way to break that cycle is to invest where the return on jobs and the prospect of attracting new business is the greatest. The CONVENTION CENTRE is it. YOUR taxes will increase much faster if we don't find a way out of this downward spiral we are in. Your model involves spending tax dollars we don't have on capex type ventures that have little or no return. That is what drives taxes up..

[sdm]

Well the allnovascotia is reporting that Kelly is considering that the city should finance the whole project and have it as an asset in 25 years.

I am not sure the public will support this as just a few months ago they were finding ways to cut 30 million.

[worldlyhaligonian]

What about all the gov money pumped into Michelin (3 plants), Stora Enso, Bowater and millions spent on thousands of acres of wilderness for nature preserves. What about the `TAXPAYERS" 40 million for the cheap 4plex in Bedford. RIM got $19 million in tax rebates to set up shop and the fishery gets millions every year. The list goes on and on and on....BUckey wake up.. it is all about job creation. The feds and province rake in $$$ from each job created in terms of income tax and HST from these new spenders.

Pierre Trudeau once said that if Atlantic Canada was a business we would be bankrupt. We rely on federal transfer payments to survive and the only way to break that cycle is to invest where the return on jobs and the prospect of attracting new business is the greatest. The CONVENTION CENTRE is it. YOUR taxes will increase much faster if we don't find a way out of this downward spiral we are in. Your model involves spending tax dollars we don't have on capex type ventures that have little or no return. That is what drives taxes up..

Good points! A convention centre acts as a hub for mostly SMEs... its a very affordable way to network/sell in your industry without travelling far. I think it would benefit rural Nova Scotian companies more than anyone.

The big companies are getting tons of money, and I don't hear enough complaints about that.

If Epstein and Co really were agains this for business reasons, then why aren't they protesting all this other money...

Its because this is about height for 99.9% of opponents and they won't straight up say so.

[fenwick16]

Well the allnovascotia is reporting that Kelly is considering that the city should finance the whole project and have it as an asset in 25 years.

I am not sure the public will support this as just a few months ago they were finding ways to cut 30 million.

The allnovascotia.com story states that the HRM is considering financing the municipality's portion of the convention centre ($47 million) at better interest rates while still wanting the federal and provincial contributions. According to the story, getting better interest rates could potentially save the municipality 3.2 to 3.45 million per year over the 25 year period (this would be a very substantial savings). Whether the HRM owns the facility or not, it would make sense to finance its portion at better interest rates. If it is run as a business owned by the HRM, then I think that it would also make sense for the municipality to pay property tax to themselves since I think the property tax would be deductible from any profit generated (so they would not have to pay as much corporate tax to the provincial and federal governments). I think a profit would be quite possible under this scenario.

It sounds like a gutsy move and it certainly makes sense to pay much less per year. It sounds like the HRM would also want ownership of the convention centre portion of the Nova Centre complex (instead of Rank Inc. owning it).

[Buckey]

Good luck Folks. NO numbers yet to back up anything. Im done with the personal attacks against me. It is immature and unbneccassry to make you point YOu will be glad to know I will know I will not be back.

everyone seem so at ease spending the public's money without much detail. I have been called everything here and I guarentee I will not post for 5 years from today.

They better rejig this deal and they better start stat providing real financial back up to support the projections. Right now the business case is a joke. I expect lost of childish comment to come like good riddance. - I will leave with this folks - After managing a billion dollar/yr division I will gurantee you that some of my best business decsions ever were NO go decisions IN the face of what my SVPs wanted and short term they were likjely bad political moves internally but longer term very strategic for me.

Fenwick - Great to see th city alreay doing exactly what you said - looking at financing the project differently. Yu obviously have a much better grasp of finance than you sheepinshly claimed you had. I think all of those numbers you presented were well done. I didnt analyse them but intuitively you were bang on. a step forward.
EDIT LOL
IN my 100 hours on this issue I read the Metro center has never made a profit but 35 years ago was hailed as the saviour also I am in that place a few times a week and I have no idea how it could ever make money. I can edit this post forever I have had recent experience with HRM finance and the TOOLE. complete incompetants. I beleive some others in Senior management very competent and have impressed me but a few are a joke. The HRM AG will look after that if he does half job the provincial AG did.

[fenwick16]

My calculations were very basic and didn't take into account the effect of inflation on future lease payments and quantitative interest savings by paying a lower interest rate. I am sure that the city has accountants and economists who can take all factors into account. The city would also know how much the province gets annually from the current WTCC in income.

Buckey - The HRM owns and operates the Halifax Metro Centre (source: https://www.halifax.ca/Council/agendasc/documents/100126ca1018.pdf) and I heard that it makes a profit (if not then it probably pays millions a year in property tax). We should both relax and let the HRM worry about the financial details. :cheers:

I am logging-off - I don't want to peeve anyone with more financial details. I just wanted to mention more details of the allnovascotia.com story since these negotiations between the 3 levels of government will eventually determine whether the convention centre proceeds or not.

[halifaxboyns]

Buckley - I wouldn't take anything against your position personally. I've had a few scraps with people on here and I haven't been posting for too long; I don't take it personally. Everyone is free to have their opinion on the issue; ultimately it's the government that will decide how to proceed.

We all have different opinions; some of them very strong - don't feel discouraged.

I think Empire's quote from Trudeau is very telling of the state of Nova Scotia (and the maritimes in general). It seems to me that if other cities are investing in building these facilities; they feel that doing so will help move create bigger economies of scale and thus move from 'have not'. Certainly the lack of growth from off-shore oil (which was supposed to be the salvation for Nova Scotia) is a huge issue.

I think many companies have reached a point that they feel the economy is so weak in Nova Scotia that they may not be willing to invest here; without some help from the Provice. I may be wrong from that perspective; but certainly the fact the NS government so freely gives payroll rebates to places like Michellin, call centres and other industries would lead me to believe that's a reasonable assumption.

When I lived in Nova Scotia - I found myself very skeptical of it ever growing; but yet here we are over 400,000 and growing faster. After being out here in Alberta for over 5 years; I see this province as having a very can-do attitude and we need to take that on. There is always risk in anything and we need to accept that. Government is in the business of economic development and the fact is that not every investment they make to 'stimulate' the economy works out for the better. Is there a chance of that here - yes; I think we all have to accept there is some risk here. But; there is also the chance that this could do the exact opposite and be a huge stimulus.

My attitude about this can be summed up this way: I would easily return home and be willing to accept the increased tax burden if this venture succeeded or failed simply because if it pays off; it could be a huge stimulus for the entire province. I guess for me; the risk of failure is offset by the potential for this to really stimulate other sectors (increase the need for more hotels, bigger rental car agencies; more restaurant businesses and more flights to the airport). The issue that the spin-offs would only be for HRM I don't think is true; because people will come back to visit - if they've never been to Nova Scotia before. I don't have stats on just how many come back - but I'd guess it's over 25% of conference attendance - if that guess is true; that's a huge pay off for the region.

I guess for me; I want to look at the positive and not dwell on the risks; because that's what keeps this province from moving forward.

[someone123]

Certainly the lack of growth from off-shore oil (which was supposed to be the salvation for Nova Scotia) is a huge issue.

I think the offshore debacle was itself very telling about the attitude of the province. Basically there is a tendency to look for an economic "saviour", preferably some natural resource that can be sold off to fill government coffers and sustain the status quo. When the resource isn't there the province scrambles to find one and when it is they sit back and relax because there is no pressure to improve.

This is how most of Canada operates but it is not going to work out for NS because the province (unfairly) does not have the same access to natural resources as others (even though it paid for the development of the West, northern Quebec, and so on). Unfortunately Canada manages natural resources in a messed up way that has never been to the advantage of the Maritimes.

All of this aside, however, plenty of successful places do not have a ton of natural resources. The US Northeast, Western Europe, West Coast, Japan, etc. are all examples of this. The success of places like Seattle or Austin has very little to do with natural resources. Nova Scotia needs to get out of the bad (Lower- and Upper-) Canadian mindset (never suited to the province) that it needs to sit back and wait for a windfall of oil and gas or minerals in order to be successful. It's time to move beyond the resource colony mentality.

[halifaxboyns]

I think the offshore debacle was itself very telling about the attitude of the province. Basically there is a tendency to look for an economic "saviour", preferably some natural resource that can be sold off to fill government coffers and sustain the status quo. When the resource isn't there the province scrambles to find one and when it is they sit back and relax because there is no pressure to improve.

This is how most of Canada operates but it is not going to work out for NS because the province (unfairly) does not have the same access to natural resources as others (even though it paid for the development of the West, northern Quebec, and so on). Unfortunately Canada manages natural resources in a messed up way that has never been to the advantage of the Maritimes.

All of this aside, however, plenty of successful places do not have a ton of natural resources. The US Northeast, Western Europe, West Coast, Japan, etc. are all examples of this. The success of places like Seattle or Austin has very little to do with natural resources. Nova Scotia needs to get out of the bad (Lower- and Upper-) Canadian mindset (never suited to the province) that it needs to sit back and wait for a windfall of oil and gas or minerals in order to be successful. It's time to move beyond the resource colony mentality.


I always believed that if the province couldn't benefit from the offshore oil sector (either because we actually didn't have any, there was no desire to press forward on it if there was some (because of the environmental lobby) or other reasons); that Halifax could benefit from the spin-offs of that sector. Take Hybernia for example. Until the recent announcement of one company moving it's offices to NFLD, I always believed you'd see the regional offices of those companies in Halifax - it made sense to me. Good transportation access, major port, balanced property cost (good mix of housing types, costs etc.), pretty reasonable economy, potentially a strong convention centre pressance and the fact that the off-shore rigs usually were based in HRM seemed to me, to support the spin off industries (helicopter charters, engineering, rig maintenance, construction etc).

When that company announced they were moving to NFLD; that vission in my mind collapsed. I'm not sure how you move forward with that...would Nova Centre (in whatever form) provide more incentive for other oil companies to remain here, or new ones to come in? I don't know...

[Buckey]

OK - I will not comment on CC. I could not agree more on the OIL biz. ON Calgary in general. It would be so nice to be not so reliant on Government as the entire driver of the economy.

[someone123]

If the money is in NFLD the province will just pay companies to locate there. Other natural advantages don't matter much, particularly if Halifax's competitiveness is hindered by high taxes, NIMBYs, etc.

[planarchy]

Critics compare convention centres
Ottawa’s an inspired work of architecture, Halifax’s an ‘expensive parking garage’
By BILL POWER Business Reporter
Sat, Oct 23 - 4:53 AM / Chronicle Herald


http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/10-23-10_rank_1.jpg
The $159-million convention centre proposed for Halifax.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/10-23-10_OTTAWA_CONVENTION_CENTRE.jpg
An artist's drawing of the $180-million convention centre planned for Ottawa.


Ottawa gets a spectacular domed convention centre that is winning raves around the world. Halifax gets a pig in a blanket.

This was the consensus Friday among some observers of the debate over a proposed new convention centre for Halifax. They had their calculators ready to compare dollar values of the $159-million proposal for downtown Halifax and the $180-million Ottawa Convention Centre scheduled to open in April.

"It is time for a serious pause to consider what is being received for the investment," said Christine Macy, dean of the faculty of architecture and planning at Dalhousie University.

Macy said it does not take an architect or an accountant to compare visuals and determine something is amiss.

"Ottawa gets a marvellous structure that brilliantly takes advantage of its place overlooking the canal," she said. "And for almost the same amount of money, Halifax is getting two storeys underground, effectively a very expensive parking garage."

Ottawa’s downtown convention centre is more expensive but provides a lot more space and reflects inspired design, Macy said. She said all of Ottawa is buzzing with excitement over the new complex.

"The Halifax project, at least what we’ve seen of it, is an uninspired sort of office complex of the sort that would have been built in the 1980s," she said.

The most vocal opponent of the concept of a new Halifax convention centre is the Coalition to Save the View. Members of that group complain that the hotel and office towers that developer Rank Inc. would build as part of the convention centre complex would block the view of Halifax Harbour from the entrance to the Citadel National Historic Site.

Macy and others contacted Friday said they have no affiliation with Save the View.

Andrew Smith, an accountant and developer of the Glubes Loft Townhouses, a condominium complex on Cornwallis Street, said he has a background in property taxation. By his calculation, the convention centre would cost more than $1,000 per square foot to build. He said he arrived at this number by dividing the $159-million cost by the 115,000 square feet of usable space.

"This is like paying more than $1 million for a 1,200-square-foot bungalow," Smith said. "This does not make sense."

John Wesley Chisholm, a filmmaker and entrepreneur with a finance degree from Dalhousie, said number-crunching raises questions about the value of the convention centre.

"We’ve not seen the sort of five-year projections on revenue and expenses that any business would be required to provide before borrowing," he said.

Chisholm questioned why the project is advancing without public consultation.

Rank Inc. has not participated publicly in the debate over the convention centre.

Premier Darrell Dexter announced on Oct. 13 that the province would cover its share of the cost. Halifax Regional Municipality is now conducting its own assessment, and the proposal still must win support from the federal government.

CBC News reported recently that the Ottawa convention centre has already booked more than 80 major international and national conventions for the next three years. Some are predicted to bring as many as 6,000 delegates to the national capital.

[Empire]

It`s too bad the lot where Tug`s Pub is couldn`t be swaped for the Herald site. A waterfront convention centre in Halifax would have huge market appeal.

Tug`s Pub large parking lot.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=halifax&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=28.224119,77.871094&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&ll=44.645907,-63.570301&spn=0.001897,0.004753&z=18]

[Keith P.]

What was this event, a Save the View tea party? I am very tired of the ongoing comparisons to the Ottawa facility. As I understand it, that is an expansion of an existing facility and thus the costs cannot be compared in a meaningful way. The usual disparaging remarks comparing this proposal to a parking garage, and the presence of the likes of John Wesley Chisholm, who makes films for a living and is hardly an expert on urban development but nevertheless spouts his wisdom constantly in the pages of the Coast and elsewhere, means that this gabfest has little credibility.

While the site of Tugs Pub is already taken for development, fear not: if the CC was proposed for that site, the obstructionists would be saying that global warming would put it underwater in 10 years and that we would be building a convention center in a sewage-filed salt-water swimming pool.

[fenwick16]

The Nova Centre cost is actually $140 million and the gross space is 306,000 square feet (the 115,000 square feet mentioned in the story above is rentable space). If prefunction/reception space is included, then the total Usable Space is 166,500 square feet. If washrooms kitchens, etc. are included then it is 306,000 square feet. The $159 million which keeps circulating is an artificial number that was calculated to include interim financing charges of $19 million ($140 million plus $19 million interim financing). If the Nova Centre were "paid for as it is built" then the cost is $140 million.

If you compare the floor plans between the Nova Centre and Ottawa Centre, they are very similar in size. After looking at the floor plans, I feel much more confident that the Nova Centre is a practical, economical design. The Nova Centre has a larger Ballroom with almost twice the height (a 28 foot ceiling) whereas the Ottawa Centre has more individual meeting space. The large, high-ceiling Ballroom in the Nova Centre will be very impressive. I don't consider the difference in prefunction/reception area to be very important.

I tabulated the specifications from the two websites below:

OTTAWA CENTRE (reference: http://ottawaconventioncentre.com/_files/documents/floorplans/Ottawa%20Convention%20Centre%20-%20Floor%20Plans%20and%20Capacity%20Charts.pdf)
46025 Meeting Space
64696 Prefunction/Reception Total
56179 Multipurpose Hall
21303 Ballroom
188203 Total USABLE Convention Space
Gross Square feet - ?

NOVA CENTRE (reference: https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf )
28,000 sq. ft. Meeting Space
51000 sq. ft. Prefunction/Reception Total
52000 sq. ft. Multipurpose Hall
35500 sq. ft. Ballroom
166500 sq. ft. Total USABLE Convention Space
306,000 sq. ft. GROSS area (including washrooms, loading areas, kitchens, administration, etc. - reference - calculated from page 22/36 and as shown in the floor plans https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf)

Do people in the HRM want to pay $180 million for an Ottawa-type Centre or $140 million for the Nova Centre? The Ottawa Centre looks great from the one front view that is almost always shown, however it is not curved glass all around the building - this is only on the one side. The other 3 sides appear to be vertical glass(?) walls. I think that the Nova Centre has to be marketed better - there are some great features in it; such as the expansive, high-ceiling Ballroom which will likely be good for live bands (the Ballroom is 50% larger and almost twice as high as the Ballroom in the Ottawa Convention Centre).

[worldlyhaligonian]

Nova Centre is more attractive IMO...

The convention centre part of the ottawa one isn't bad, but those buildings surrounding it are pretty ugly. From what I remember of that area, one is a 70's gov building and the other a crapy hotel.

Is there no hotel portion in the ottawa one?

[Phalanx]

Nova Centre is more attractive IMO...

The convention centre part of the ottawa one isn't bad, but those buildings surrounding it are pretty ugly. From what I remember of that area, one is a 70's gov building and the other a crapy hotel.

Is there no hotel portion in the ottawa one?

Re: Ottawa CC

Yes, the building on the left is a hotel, the one on the right is actually NDHQ. It's actually across the street from the convention centre. The convention centre is next to the Rideau Centre (which, from the photo above's perspective, is behind the CC). I walked by the construction site several times this summer on the way to the Rideau Centre.

The buildings immediately adjacent to the Ottawa CC are nothing to write home about, but the area is very nice, and has several good hotels and other attractions.

[fenwick16]

Nova Centre is more attractive IMO...


The one front view of the Ottawa Centre certainly is impressive, however it appears as though the other three walls are essentially vertical blank walls (one wall appears to be directly next to a highway, one wall is adjacent to a mall and the other wall is adjacent to a Western hotel based on Bing Maps). The overall Nova Centre might actually be more attractive.

[Phalanx]

No. The curved glass curtain wall continues around at least one side. Not sure about the other because I never saw that wall. The back wall is up against the Rideau Centre, so...

[sdm]

No. The curved glass curtain wall continues around at least one side. Not sure about the other because I never saw that wall. The back wall is up against the Rideau Centre, so...

Actually its the largest curved curtain wall in all of Canada, very expensive.

[fenwick16]

It certainly is impressive. I haven't been able to see any complete images of the other 3 sides. All the images seem to be of the curved glass wall which seems to wrap partly around the front corners as below. The other sides might be glass but not curved like the front view.

I don't think anyone can argue that the Ottawa design wouldn't look good in Halifax or elsewhere. If this had of been proposed for the Halifax waterfront then it probably wouldn't have been opposed by the Heritage Groups, at least not based on height. But then it probably would have been opposed based on cost (I think that the glass curtain wall would add many millions of dollars to the design).

OTTAWA Convention Centre 3rd Floor.
(source: http://ottawaconventioncentre.com/_files/documents/floorplans/Ottawa%20Convention%20Centre%20-%20Floor%20Plans%20and%20Capacity%20Charts.pdf )
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/262/3rdfloorottawaconventio.jpg

[worldlyhaligonian]

Hmm... are there more functional spaces like a breakaway meeting rooms or retail?

The Ottawa design works very European and works wel because it fronts onto the water.

Given the site in Halifax and the need to address several streets, I think the design of the Nova Centre is decent and with hotel, office, and retail will work.

Its not really Scotia Square because of the hotel element. Also, I think the Atrium is a good feature and given the weather in Halifax.

[Phalanx]

No retail. The curved wall is top to bottom, and along the edge of the canal, so would be out of place, and as I've already mentioned, it's right up against the Rideau Centre, a huge mall, so I'm not sure if exterior retail would be necessary, or even work in this context. Besides, when you're actually trying to make an architectural statement, you probably don't want to clutter it up with retail.

The Halifax proposal is functional, but it's hardly trying to make a statement. It's just very practical.

[fenwick16]

Referring to the story at this link:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1208372.html
Mayor Peter Kelly said this week that he doesn’t like the province messing with municipal revenue sources by wanting to avoid paying property tax on the centre. He said that could mean the city would lose out on more than $8 million a year.

Would the HRM really charge $8 million a year in property tax for the convention centre alone? That would be $25.89 per square foot for property tax alone ($8M/309,000 square feet gross). That sounds very high (when I watched the internet broadcast there was no mention of the entire complex being exempt.).

EDITED: Another story from earlier indicated that it would be $1.2 million per year for the convention centre portion which sounds more reasonable - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/10/19/ns-halifax-council-convention.html . There seems to be a great deal of mis-information in the newspapers regarding the CC.

[Empire]

Referring to the story at this link:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1208372.html


Would the HRM really charge $8 million a year in property tax for the convention centre alone? That would be $25.89 per square foot for property tax alone ($8M/309,000 square feet gross). That sounds very high (when I watched the internet broadcast there was no mention of the entire complex being exempt.).

I was just about to post the same comment. The tax revenue for the city from the entire complex ....CC, hotel and office tower was estimated at 8-12 million. In the ask from the province the request was that the province be exempt from paying property tax on the CC portion of the complex. Firstly they wouldn't be paying tax on the hotel or office tower because they are not putting a penny into it. Secondly why would you pay property tax on property you don't own? You don't get a tax bill for an apartment. Either Kelly misunderstands the entire concept or the reporter has put a twist on it. If the developer owns the entire complex then they should get the entire tax bill.

[Empire]

Here are some pics I took in Ottawa this July of the convention centre plus a few others.

Current Ottawa Convention Centre. Not sure but I think this will be connected to the new one which is right beside it.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_2032.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_2199.jpg

CC accross from the Chateau Laurier
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_2200.jpg

New Ottawa CC on the Rideau
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_2204.jpg

Stairs from the CC to the canal bike/walking/jogging trail

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_2206.jpg

CC looking east

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_2208.jpg

Public art that isn't a lighthouse
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_2222.jpg

[fenwick16]

Here are some pics I took in Ottawa this July of the convention centre plus a few others.

Current Ottawa Convention Centre. Not sure but I think this will be connected to the new one which is right beside it.

How do you think that the Nova Centre will compare to the Ottawa Convention Centre? The Ottawa Convention Centre looks more impressive. However, based on the floor plans of the two, I think that the functionality of the Nova Centre is just as good (it has less individual meeting space but a much larger Ballroom which might be suitable for small concerts also, and the Exhibit/Multipurpose Halls look almost identical in space for the two).

[Empire]

How do you think that the Nova Centre will compare to the Ottawa Convention Centre? The Ottawa Convention Centre looks more impressive. However, based on the floor plans of the two, I think that the functionality of the Nova Centre is just as good (it has less individual meeting space but a much larger Ballroom which might be suitable for small concerts also, and the Exhibit/Multipurpose Halls look almost identical in space for the two).

I think the actual layout of the Nova Centre is not bad. I like the large Ballroom and Exibit area. I guess that Halifax could use a bit more of a marketing edge and a location like the waterfornt would help. That being said, the Nova Centre is on Halifax's version of Bourbon St. (Argyle). The Ottawa CC has a great location on the Rideau plus it is at the edge of Byward Market.

[worldlyhaligonian]

That whole area has improved significantly... it used to be pretty sketchy around the RC is some places.

Its not really near the rest of the downtown on the other side of the canal though, I think the area in Halifax is much more lively.

[Empire]

That whole area has improved significantly... it used to be pretty sketchy around the RC is some places.

Its not really near the rest of the downtown on the other side of the canal though, I think the area in Halifax is much more lively.

I agree, Halifax has a more lively feel. The Ottawa CC is on the edge of the ByWard district but it still seems to have a reserved atmosphere.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, the mall is always fairly busy and the area is more active at certain times of the day, but the atmosphere is different than the downtown area on one side or Byward area on the other side (which I like the most).

Its still a bit sketchy in areas.

[halifaxboyns]

I find the reason why Halifax works so well is because it's grown at such a slow rate; that the growth has been organic meaning that it's been slow enough that we don't need to over-plan things. They just tend to work out without much pushing from the planners, which is good.

As to the design; personally I think Nova centre could be better. But then again, any building could be better. The fact is; we're trying to design a CC that's functional - not a gateway to the world. If we wanted a gateway to the world; I'd say talk to the architects that did the Canada Line station at YVR or design something to include elements from the citadell or local heritage. We want something functional but reasonable in design.

If we were back at step one and looking for sites; I would have to say - I'd probably champion a different location. When this site was brought forward, my first thought was - there are better places. But then again, I don't have a spare $150 million in my back pocket! Besides; any developer could've brought forward a proposal like this. People can suggest but until it's built; it's still a proposal.

If I were asked what sites I'd go for; there are a few. I'd have talked to the guy's doing Queens Wharf and see if it could've gone there as part of the new Maritime Museum of the Atlantic. That would put it on the waterfront and make any view incredible. Another site (just below Twisted Sisters) would be the same block that has the two federal government office buildings and a parking lot (the Hollis/Sackville/Lower Water Block) just above Summit Place. Or, even summit place would work if Queen's Wharf couldn't - the site was underdeveloped from the get go and isn't impeeded by viewplanes. Or, since it's about enhancing the Regional Capital - downtown Halifax isn't the only part of the Regional Capital region; so is Downtown Dartmouth so just build out into the harbour and then you get a great view...

...But it's too late and those aren't options; so we have to work with what we have. I believe that this will still put us on a bigger stage of conventions and attract more visitors to town.

[kph06]

Funny how things really don't change after 30 years. I was looking at old pictures in my parents basement last night and found some that were wrapped in old newspapers, just for kicks I started looking at the papers. This was the first article I saw from 1981 (excuse the blood, I got a paper cut in the process of unwrapping).

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5114058600_ddbde914db_b.jpg

[halifaxboyns]

Wow, what a find!

[kwajo]

Wow, what commitment - spilled blood to help keep Skyscraperpage users informed!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Wow, if this is the era when our current convention centre was built, its clear we need a new one.

I find the whole "we already have a convention centre" point rediculous... why is every other major centre building them then?

[Empire]

Wow, if this is the era when our current convention centre was built, its clear we need a new one.

I find the whole "we already have a convention centre" point rediculous... why is every other major centre building them then?

Every other major centre is building them because they also build stadiums.

[fenwick16]

Funny how things really don't change after 30 years. I was looking at old pictures in my parents basement last night and found some that were wrapped in old newspapers, just for kicks I started looking at the papers. This was the first article I saw from 1981 (excuse the blood, I got a paper cut in the process of unwrapping).

This is a very interesting story. Thanks for posting it.

From what I remember, the Metro Centre was designed to allow the future addition of the current WTCC. So I think it was considered around 1976 when the Metro Centre was being planned and constructed. I was around to see the Metro Centre being built but had moved before the current convention centre was started in the 1980's.

Was there much opposition to the current WTCC being built in the 1980's? There are a few people on this forum who would have been around at the time.

[Empire]

This is a very interesting story. Thanks for posting it.

From what I remember, the Metro Centre was designed to allow the future addition of the current WTCC. So I think it was considered around 1976 when the Metro Centre was being planned and constructed. I was around to see the Metro Centre being built but had moved before the current convention centre was started in the 1980's.

Was there much opposition to the current WTCC being built in the 1980's? There are a few people on this forum who would have been around at the time.

The original WTCC was completed in 1984 for $21million and financed by three levels of government. It has 100,000 sq. ft. of office space. I don't remember opposition but I'm sure there was plenty.

[halifaxboyns]

I was digging through the voice of the people section for the Herald today and look at what I found:

Misleading comparison


Re: "Critics compare convention centres" (Oct. 23).

Here’s a real comparison between the cost of Halifax’s proposed P3 convention centre and Ottawa’s. Halifax’s $159-million underground convention centre will cost $957 per square foot, but will be owned by the developer. Ottawa’s $170-million, seven-storey building on the edge of the Rideau Canal will cost $885/sq. ft. and will be publicly owned. On that ground, it seems misleading to say that Ottawa’s is more expensive.

And while it is correct that the Save the View Coalition has complained that public money contributed to Halifax’s project will double the towers associated with the underground convention centre and block the view of Halifax Harbour from Citadel Hill, it is also misleading to suggest that is the limit of the coalition’s vision for Halifax.

Since May 2009, the coalition has been putting forward three reasons why it didn’t support this development. Save the View wants smart development for the downtown with a sound business case, proper public participation in the development approval process, and all new buildings to be financially and environmentally sustainable. There is no business case for this P3 project. The public’s money would be better spent on necessary government services such as health, education, affordable housing, etc.

See www.savetheview.ca/ for details.


Peggy Cameron


for Save the View

From the herald online.

[someone123]

There is no business case for this P3 project.

Looks like she's aware of a time-honoured tradition. If you don't have a strong argument, just assert that your claims are true rather than addressing evidence to the contrary.

[Empire]

I was digging through the voice of the people section for the Herald today and look at what I found:

Misleading comparison


Re: "Critics compare convention centres" (Oct. 23).

..................and environmentally sustainable. There is no business case for this P3 project. The public’s money would be better spent on necessary government services such as health, education, affordable housing, etc.See www.savetheview.ca/ for details.


Peggy Cameron


for Save the View

From the herald online.

She also has been attending the school of "Bruce". I want all my tax $$ to be spent on projects that suck the life out of a near bankrupt province.

[fenwick16]

The views of the Save the View group are just nauseating to me. They will tell any half-truth in order to convince people to turn the convention centre down. On their nauseating website containing various extremely annoying video clips, they are now saying that they had 2000 signatures on their petition (I only remember it being about 700). They are also resorting to threats by stating on their website that most residents are opposed to the Nova Centre and that most of the HRM council and Mayor will be gone in the next election if it proceeds. It is time for these special interest groups to go; they have manipulated HRM residents and the system for long enough, in my opinion.

Any decision by the HRM council should be based purely on the economics of the CC deal. The Nova Centre seems to make sense if the NDP find a better way to finance the deal (which I am sure that they can if they really want it to proceed). At the 6.9% rate for 25 years plus $19 million interim financing charge then I don't think that it is good for tax-payers. We will know more on November 9.

PS: If the NDP/HRM pay too much in financing charges by paying too high an interest rate, then there is less money left for other facilities such as an economically priced stadium (for example - a Cardiff City type Stadium). I think the HRM needs both, the Nova Centre and a stadium.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Only "smart" developments guys.

[Phalanx]

New article from Roger Taylor regarding the tax exemption request by the province
Convention centre tax issue is tough nut to crack (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1209282.html)

Obviously, the municipally owned centres don’t pay property taxes. Of the provincially owned ones, the existing Halifax operation and two owned by the Quebec government pay property taxes.

Which, according to the article, is only half of the provincially owned/operated convention centres, so tax exemption isn't necessarily an unreasonable/unheard of request.

[halifaxboyns]

Personally, I suspect that to some degree their claim that some councillors will pay the price for Nova Centre will be true - but there is nothing wrong with that. At some point in a person's political career; a councillor has to make a decision that may not be popular with the populus but serves a greater good. The fact that they would make that decision and then stick to it to me would earn my vote.

A good example is the peace bridge here in Calgary. Druh Farrell narrowly defended her seat on council because of that and she was a strong supporter of the bridge; even though the vast majority felt it was a waste of $25 million dollars. I'm willing to see both sides of the argument.

Regardless; to make the claim that they will pay the price is a bit presumptious.

[fenwick16]

Only "smart" developments guys.

Does that include a stadium and convention centre? The stadium is more of a quality of life venue. There is only a weak business case for the stadium - so I am not sure if the stadium would be considered to be a smart development, more of a fun development.

[fenwick16]

Since there are so many different reports regarding the square footage of the Nova Centre, I decided to tabulate the square footage based on the floor plans. Even though the Save the View group and related groups are doing all that they can to make it sound like an insignificant underground garage, it is actually an immense structure of 305,000 square feet on 8 levels (the 2 primary convention levels are each about 30 feet tall which allows for additional levels along the sides of these primary levels). The Ottawa Centre is about 290,000 gross square feet based on sketches of the floor plans (not including parking areas), so the gross area of the Nova Centre appears to be several thousand square feet larger.

Regarding the Nova Centre convention centre, the square footage is tabulated in my spreadsheet below: https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf )
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2940/novacentregrosssquarefe.jpg

Based on the floor plans from Nova Centre information release, there are areas in the Nova Centre that have been under-reported such as the prefunction areas. So comparing apples and apples, even the usable space is greater in the Nova Centre than the Ottawa Convention Centre. Now if the the financial terms can just be improved then the Nova Centre will start looking very good.
NOVA CENTRE (reference: https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf )
Listed Square Footage
28,000 sq. ft. Meeting Space
51000 sq. ft. Prefunction/Reception Total 76,110 (Actual shown on the floor plans)
52000 sq. ft. Multipurpose Hall
35500 sq. ft. Ballroom
166,500 sq. ft. Total USABLE Convention Space ---> 191,610 sq. ft. USABLE SPACE if all prefunction space is included
305,000 square feet GROSS (including kitchens, hallways, washrooms, loading areas, administration, etc.)

[worldlyhaligonian]

Does that include a stadium and convention centre? The stadium is more of a quality of life venue. There is only a weak business case for the stadium - so I am not sure if the stadium would be considered to be a smart development, more of a fun development.

I was just poking fun at the wording. These folks would likely be against a stadium too if it were anywhere near downtown.

Developments aren't smart or dumb, that is subjective.

[Empire]

New article from Roger Taylor regarding the tax exemption request by the province
Convention centre tax issue is tough nut to crack (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1209282.html)



Which, according to the article, is only half of the provincially owned/operated convention centres, so tax exemption isn't necessarily an unreasonable/unheard of request.

You don't pay property tax on property you don't own. Rank is responsible for all property tax on the convention centre, hotel and office building. The provincial gov is not required to pay any property tax.

[Empire]

Here is the problem with being stupid enough to turn down $400million in fed money for the Commonwealth Games. We will not live it down for decades. Canceling the games outright was a massive mistake. Kelly must go!

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1209419.html
MacKay expresses convention centre skepticism
Feds will wait to see N.S., HRM contributions
By JUDY MYRDEN Staff Reporter


Defence Minister Peter MacKay, the lone Nova Scotian in the federal cabinet, said the federal government has yet to receive a formal proposal for funding for the project from the provincial government.

"I’ve had the experience in the past where we come out very strongly in support of things, like the Commonwealth Games," MacKay said Friday evening before speaking the Progressive Conservative Party convention in Halifax.

"As you know . . . the federal government put over $400 million on the table and then the province and the city decided otherwise.

"To that extent, twice bitten; we’ll see what happens."

[fenwick16]

I interpreted Peter MacKay's comments differently. It sounds to me like the federal government doesn't want to come out too strongly in favour just in case either the provincial government or HRM decides not to support it. On the other hand, if both do support it then I get the impression that the federal government will also.

[Empire]

I interpreted Peter MacKay's comments differently. It sounds to me like the federal government doesn't want to come out too strongly in favour just in case either the provincial government or HRM decides not to support it. On the other hand, if both do support it then I get the impression that the federal government will also.

I don't think it would be too prudent for the feds to support an NDP gov without a bit of politics.

[hfx_chris]

If the Save the View group was actually interested in more than just saving the view, they should consider renaming their group.

[halifaxboyns]

I re-watched the Save the view piece they did with eastlink. What stands out to me is a graphic they showed of the convention centre business. Now throughout the whole discussion they kept harping on about the fact that conferences were decreasing - yet the graphic showed that up to a point and then it flatlined. So the trend actually wasn't decreasing; it was holding steady. So how can they say that it's decreasing now, when their own graph showed it was stable?

What I find flawed in all this is some of their comments saying people will get away from travel because of fossil fuels and are using video conferencing more and more. I have problems with that because I've tried to use video conferencing at work at least a dozen times. For one reason or another; I'd say it worked only 30% of the time. The rest of the time; it broke up or didn't work at all. Although I did a teleconference with the American Planning Association a couple of weeks ago that worked well.

But the fact is; as human beings we value human contact. So I doubt we'll get away from conferences quite as much as they said. Plus as much as it's bad for the environment; I see travel rebounding once the economy gets back to normal.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I re-watched the Save the view piece they did with eastlink. What stands out to me is a graphic they showed of the convention centre business. Now throughout the whole discussion they kept harping on about the fact that conferences were decreasing - yet the graphic showed that up to a point and then it flatlined. So the trend actually wasn't decreasing; it was holding steady. So how can they say that it's decreasing now, when their own graph showed it was stable?

What I find flawed in all this is some of their comments saying people will get away from travel because of fossil fuels and are using video conferencing more and more. I have problems with that because I've tried to use video conferencing at work at least a dozen times. For one reason or another; I'd say it worked only 30% of the time. The rest of the time; it broke up or didn't work at all. Although I did a teleconference with the American Planning Association a couple of weeks ago that worked well.

But the fact is; as human beings we value human contact. So I doubt we'll get away from conferences quite as much as they said. Plus as much as it's bad for the environment; I see travel rebounding once the economy gets back to normal.

They are completely manipulating the information to meet their viewpoint.

I don't think aggregate global revenues have ever actually decreased... increasing at a decreasing rate is not stagnation.

Also any numbers from 2008 onward will be skewed due to the global financial crisis.

Imagine looking at GDP from 2008-2010 and using this data as proof that the Canadian economy is stagnant.

[someone123]

Save the View are just throwing out a bunch of far-fetched arguments to see if they stick.

The closest analogue I see is groups that argue against same sex marriage. You get bizarre, vague "family values" arguments from them because they have no real arguments. Similarly, Save the View has to resort to hand waving about fossil fuels. Fundamentally their reason for objecting to this development is just that it involves a developer potentially making lots of money and putting up a big building. They realize that their own personal sentiments are insufficient arguments in public debate so they have to scramble to find something else.

If they had better arguments they'd use them.

[sdm]

Convention centre: Can we all just get a grip?

By DAN LEGER
Mon, Nov 1 - 6:48 AM








The toxic wrangle over the new Halifax convention centre is not just about money or the view from Citadel Hill. It’s also about how we conduct public business.

Aside from financials or design, the tenor of the debate suggests we are having a hard time sustaining rational discussions about where we should be going.

That’s not to say there isn’t a lot on the line: $159 million of public funds isn’t exactly chump change. But if the project’s supporters are right, it will pay off in jobs and economic growth.

Even if the projections are wrong and the convention centre doesn’t attract a lot of new business, its costs won’t close hospitals or make the roads unsafe. It’s not a make-or-break figure.

What matters is management. If the project is approved, it must be with strict cost controls and accountability. That’s not impossible, despite the popular belief that we can’t do anything right around here.

So what about the view planes? The convention centre proposal conforms to the legal planning framework, so it’s not a view plane issue. That doesn’t mean we’ll all embrace the esthetic of whatever goes into the concrete pit on Argyle Street. Rarely do new developments bathe in unanimous acclaim.

Rank Inc.’s drawings don’t suggest a building of inspiring beauty — far from it. But while it’s not the Sydney Opera House, it’s also not Scotia Square. It might help to think of the building as one issue and the deal as another. It’s possible we don’t know enough yet to say whether it’s workable or not.

Perhaps that’s why the scraps over the building and the deal have merged into a miasma of resentment and hostility. The Yeas cast the Nays as perpetual Luddites and complainers. The Nays see the Yeas as tasteless looters of the public purse. It’s descending into polarization and ad-hominem attacks.

This un-Nova Scotian hostility goes back to the botched Commonwealth Games bid, in which the Games’ backers demanded public support, but from behind a wall of secrecy and exclusion. Citizens weren’t properly informed or consulted, so when the bid faltered, there wasn’t enough public support to keep it going.

The fiasco exposed Halifax as a vacillating mouse-city in a poorly led province and it still taints the public discourse. We see that every time the convention centre is raised.

So it’s time to step back, take a deep breath and ask the questions that need to be asked. And that’s what Bill Black is doing.

Black, a former CEO of Maritime Life, sometime political candidate and a very smart businessman, says we don’t know enough about the convention centre proposal to say whether it’s a good deal or not. The issues have become muddled.

"I think it’s important to separate the physical building … from the business deal," he says. Just because you don’t like the design doesn’t mean it’s a bad deal for taxpayers or it won’t work as a business.

In fact, Black thinks the convention centre is a good idea for Halifax, but only "if we can get a sensible deal at a reasonable price."

But Black doesn’t like the idea that the province will borrow the money and that the developer will end up as owner, an idea that doesn’t make sense to him. It could result, over time, in a hedge fund or foreign investors owning an asset built by taxpayers.

He also says it’s hard to understand how the $159-million figure was arrived at because it’s not entirely clear what’s included. And that makes him queasy. So far, there’s been "tons of data but not a lot of hard information."

That worries the veteran deal maker. "Given that I feel a little uncomfortable about the stuff I do understand, I worry about the stuff I don’t understand."

He says governments should have set out a budget and told the developers to work with that figure, not the other way around. The process so far has only served to confuse the debate, and that’s partly why it has turned so nasty.

[fenwick16]

I also wonder why a long term capital lease was chosen over the Traditional Design Build. I would understand the logic if the depreciated asset value of the convention centre was deducted from the initial convention centre cost in order to reduce the lease payments but that doesn't appear to be the case. Also, the 6.9% interest rate payments for 25 years in addition to $19 million interim financing to delay payments until 2014 doesn't sound reasonable for NS and HRM taxpayers (I assume this is being done just so that the debt won't be on the provincial books - will it be on Rank Inc.'s books - is this why the NDP is willing to accept a 6.9% interest rate when they can get 25 year bonds at about 4.7% interest?). The NDP will hopefully clarify why they chose this financing deal.

The quote below is from the WTCC-II Bid Summary. (sources: https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf )
• Procurement business case looked at Traditional Design Build vs. Long Term Capital Lease

• Integrated nature of the complex allows for efficiencies:
• Design and construction costs
• Operating costs
• Facility Maintenance

• Public promotion of events and marketing allows for maximum economic benefits

• Province is being asked to contribute to the Convention Center only; other parts of the development are 100% funded by the Developer


I am 100% in favour of a new convention centre but I just hope that the financial terms can be improved. At $10.2 million annual amortization payments for 25 years and $2.9 million annual maintenance payments, I just don't think that it will be a money making proposition.

[Buckey]

I also wonder why a long term capital lease was chosen over the Traditional Design Build. I would understand the logic if the depreciated asset value of the convention centre was deducted from the initial convention centre cost in order to reduce the lease payments but that doesn't appear to be the case. Also, the 6.9% interest rate payments with $19 million interim financing until 2014 doesn't sound reasonable for NS and HRM taxpayers (I assume this is being done just so that the debt won't be on the provincial books - will it be on Rank Inc.'s books - is this why the NDP is willing to accept a 6.9% interest rate?). The NDP will hopefully clarify why they chose this financing deal.
The quote below is from the WTCC-II Bid Summary. (sources: https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf )

Maybe the province/HRM should consider owning the entire complex. They could lease out the hotel and recover that cost. The office portion could be used for HRM and provincial purposes and any space not needed could be leased to private interests.

I thinks thats all most folks want - some clearer explanations

[halifaxboyns]

Someone posting to Dan Leger's opinion piece (for which my comment created pretty daggerous remarks) said it best: It's a matter of trust. That person pointed out past planning blunders as to why urban planners aren't trusted and while I take that a little personally (as a planner); I have to believe we've evolved to a point where we recognize our mistakes of the past. Many of the projects that person points out were done a long time ago, like Maritime Centre of the Harbourfront Drive (and the Cogswell Interchange).

I think we've grown up simply distrusting politicans to the point where it wouldn't matter if a CGA came forward and said the math made sense (or not) - we simply wouldn't trust it.

[someone123]

Someone posting to Dan Leger's opinion piece (for which my comment created pretty daggerous remarks) said it best: It's a matter of trust. That person pointed out past planning blunders as to why urban planners aren't trusted and while I take that a little personally (as a planner); I have to believe we've evolved to a point where we recognize our mistakes of the past. Many of the projects that person points out were done a long time ago, like Maritime Centre of the Harbourfront Drive (and the Cogswell Interchange).

I think we've grown up simply distrusting politicans to the point where it wouldn't matter if a CGA came forward and said the math made sense (or not) - we simply wouldn't trust it.

I think this is a very common but ignorant perspective. This often comes from people who don't bother to look at details. As a result, it feels like some things randomly work out, others don't, and that it is because of "good" or "bad" ("untrustworthy") politicians. In the worst case these people just vote for whoever seems the most "trustworthy" ("George Bush is a guy I'd like to have a beer with!") and continue to create random results.

That is an extremely lazy form of civic involvement. It totally misses the point of why politicians do what they do and what makes projects successful or unsuccessful. Most people have the capacity and the resources available to learn about these projects so that they can know something about issues like financing or urban design, if they are interested in those things. If they aren't, they shouldn't be commenting on those issues. This is all particularly easy at the municipal level.

[fenwick16]

CAUTION: The following post may cause drowsiness.:)

I have read a bit more from the WTCC site and it explains the rationale behind Rank Inc. privately financing the convention centre instead of the government, plus the constraints and benefits produced by private ownership. It is explained on pages 34/61 to 39/61 of this pdf file - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Deloitte_Report.pdf

Some of it is easy to understand. Some sounds very theoretical/subjective: The main points are quoted below:

Source: Page 35/61 of the pdf file or page 28 of the report https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Deloitte_Report.pdf6.3.1 Imposed constraints
This Project, in the context of the proposal submitted by Rank in response to the EOI, contains some imposed constraints that limit the public sector’s ability to freely select among potential delivery models as presented in Figure 11. These are:
• Ownership of land: The public sector does not own the land on which the proposed WTCC II is to be developed. The land is owned directly by Rank and is deemed to meet the location needs, objectives, and operating requirements of the WTCC II.
• Proposed integrated facility: The development of the convention center is being proposed in the context of a large, inextricably integrated facility. The preliminary design contemplates that the convention center space will reside beneath a substantial hotel complex, above a parking structure and adjacent to an office tower. These two imposed constraints create the situation whereby the public sector would not be able to, nor have the desire to, design, construct, finance and maintain the development of the convention center space. Key reasons are:
• Ownership: This should be retained by the private sector given that the land is currently owned by Rank. Purchase of the land and/or building by the public sector would open the public sector up to the risk of the development failing (i.e. there is less of a benefit of owning the convention center space if the hotel space above it were to be unsuccessful). In addition, the other elements of the development are outside the public sector’s expertise, core experience, and desired scope of enterprise. A privately owned model also allows for enhanced flexibility on the part of the public sector to determine the length of the term and potential extensions, etc. without the risk of the facility becoming functionally obsolete.
• Design: The design has already been proposed and in the context of an integrated facility, the public sector would not want to retain design risk associated with a large and complex development of this type, nor would the private sector accept. In addition, the integrated nature of the facility would render it impossible to impose the public sector’s own design of the convention center space into the larger project.
• Construction: Similar to the above, it would be impractical to have the public sector and Rank each hire separate contractors to construct the integrated facility. This would create huge interface risks in that it would be impossible to distinguish the responsibility and the parameters of each individual contractor’s scope of work.
• Finance: Based on the premise that the public sector would not own the land or the WTCC II, public sector financing of an interest in the larger development would not be desirable. Furthermore, third party due diligence conducted by a lender places greater positive tension on the private sector partner to deliver the space required by the public sector according to all stipulated performance standards, without fail, in satisfaction of their debt obligations with which private sector equity remains at risk.
• Maintenance: Similar to the construction constraints, the maintenance of such an integrated facility is best handled if performed by Rank. As the owner of the facility, Rank would want to retain a certain level of control over the lifecycle of the facility and in addition, the public sector would not want to retain the risk associated with maintaining only a portion of an integrated facility. Rank will also be able to achieve economies of scale with respect to tools, people, equipment, etc. that will already be on site and available for the rest of the facility. The synergies are clear as Rank will be providing similar scope of services with personnel and equipment already on site. There is no need to duplicate this infrastructure and delivery capacity with the public sector. This should result in a less expensive maintenance contract for the public sector.

These imposed constraints focus attention to the operation of the convention center space which is consequently limited to two specific delivery options under private ownership. These are the DBFM and DBFOM models detailed in Figure 12.

The WTCC website (https://conventioncentreinfo.com/about/project-funding/) clearly states that the rationale quoted above was used to determine the funding of the Convention Centre:
Project Funding

Funding discussions with the federal and municipal governments are ongoing for the convention centre portion of the project. The intention is that the funding will be shared between the Province of Nova Scotia, the Government of Canada and the Halifax Regional Municipality.

The Deloitte Business Case to Determine the Preferred Delivery Model recommends a Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) model for ownership and operations of the proposed convention centre.

This means the private partner would own the facility, and be responsible for the design, building and ongoing maintenance. The private partner would also provide the capital for the project in return for an annual service payment over the agreed to operating term.

The public sector would be responsible for operating the facility itself. This means activities related to events such as sales and marketing, catering and general site operations would be managed by a government agency like Trade Centre Limited.


PS: Based on what I read in the Deloitte report above, the main reason of having Rank Inc. finance the convention centre privately (through a 3rd party) is because 1) they own the land and 2) to mitigate the risk of cost over-runs. Maybe they should go back to the drawing board and design a simpler building at lower cost that shouldn't go over budget and that can be financed at the lowest interest rate possible through the 3 levels of government. I would agree with the HRM council if they decide to reject the current financial terms. On the other hand, if it can be financed at much lower interest rates then it would appear to be a suitable design.

[planarchy]

No longer tied to a confidentiality agreement with the province, Rank Inc. boss Joe Ramia talks about his ambitious development dream
By CHRIS LAMBIE Business Editor | EXCLUSIVE
Wed, Nov 3 - 4:53 AM / Chronicle Herald


http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/11-03-10_ArgyleNight_0.jpg

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/Business_Centre_Night_Provincial_11-03-10_NAGC5AR_0.jpg

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/SLIDESHOW56copy_Provincial_11-03-10_NAGC48N.jpg

JOE RAMIA says it wasn’t his idea to lease taxpayers a convention centre proposed for downtown Halifax.

The head of Rank Inc. said Tuesday that the province has released him from a confidentiality agreement, allowing him to publicly discuss the $159-million facility. Ramia has come under withering fire in recent weeks from critics who are livid the public won’t own the convention centre once the 25-year lease runs out.

"We put many options on the table to the government. They’re the one, if you look at (the province’s request for proposals), they specifically asked for this to be a lease," Ramia told The Chronicle Herald’s editorial board.

If the province and the city, which also has its name on the request for proposals, want to own the convention centre, Ramia said that would work for him.

"It’s their choice. They can tell us what they’d like."

The federal government will be asked to pay about $47 million toward the convention centre in a lump sum when the project would be mostly finished, likely in 2014. Officials said at a briefing last month 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.

There are also two five-year options to extend the lease.

Ramia said he is looking at the idea of creating a bond to finance the convention centre.

"They might say, ‘We want to put up the bond,’ " Ramia said of the province and the city.

"We’re open to any options that they come up with that make sense for them."

Rank hasn’t calculated what all three levels of government would have to pay to own the facility outright.

"If they ask us for this, we’ll have to work out those numbers," Ramia said. "They haven’t asked us for it."

The convention centre is part of a bigger project that includes an office tower, residential space and a hotel on the former Halifax Herald Ltd. property. The total price tag is close to $500 million.

The convention centre’s design has faced criticism from local architects who panned it as an underground bunker.

Noel Fowler, Ramia’s architect on the project, said putting the convention centre underground was the best way to go.

"They work better without windows," Fowler said.

The alternative would be "brutal" 21-metre-high blank walls at street level, he said.

"It’s not acceptable to create the super block," Fowler said.

Putting the convention centre underground leaves the street level open to retail, restaurants and bars, he said.

"None of that would have been possible if you tried to put this above grade," Fowler said.

Critics have also compared the overall project to a 1980s-style office complex that speaks nothing of Nova Scotia.

But Ramia unveiled new images Tuesday that show much more modern design options, including foil-shaped curves reminiscent of sails and a tower that looks like a lighthouse at night.

"We have to do a public consultation," the developer said, noting that can happen next year while excavation is underway.

The project’s highlight, he said, would be the 14-storey financial centre planned for the complex’s northwest corner.

Two thousand people will work in that building alone, said Ramia, who noted that he is talking to four Fortune 500 companies interested in leasing space in the structure.

"Financial people — and that’s who we’re really selling to, is only financial people in New York and London — they love their people to be all together in one building," Ramia said.

"We could be filled before we go in the ground."

One company alone wants 80,000 square feet of office space, he said.

As many as 7,000 people will work in the entire complex, said Ramia, noting that 1,700 people will be employed in its construction.

"If you look at Purdy’s (Wharf) I, Purdy’s II (and) Cogswell Tower, that’s what you see coming out of the ground and finished all at the same time. That’s the impact that this building and this project will have on Halifax."

Financial services companies are interested in setting up shop in Halifax because it is a "welcoming city" with a well-educated workforce, he said. Those companies like the low cost of doing business here, good flight connections to Europe and the United States, Canada’s stable banking regulations, and a time zone that puts us four hours behind London and one hour ahead of New York, Ramia said.

Osama bin Laden and the recent recession have also apparently given Halifax a leg up by forcing companies to look for safe venues to set up shop.

The climate of fear after 9-11 "has helped us, no question, and the financial crisis has helped us," Ramia said.

"It’s unbelievable, but it has helped us."

The heart of the complex will be a glass-covered galleria that could include a skating rink, he said.

"In here, there will be retail, there will be food and beverage, there will be entertainment, and it’s a public space."

Ramia is also looking at the idea of teaming up with NSCAD University to stage an international design competition to produce art for the open area.

The developer is suggesting that a section of Grafton Street be closed to vehicles but open to pedestrians.

"But that’s the city’s decision," Ramia said.

An underground tunnel down Grafton will connect the convention centre to the Metro Centre.

Ramia is talking to a Washington-based, 4½-star hotel chain that is interested in occupying the project’s proposed 18-storey hotel.

"This is much bigger than a convention centre," Ramia said of the entire project, dubbed the Nova Centre.

It is slated to occupy two city blocks and be completed by 2015.

[terrynorthend]

Very exciting new renders!

[fenwick16]

Ramia said he is looking at the idea of creating a bond to finance the convention centre.

"They might say, ‘We want to put up the bond,’ " Ramia said of the province and the city.

"We’re open to any options that they come up with that make sense for them."

Rank hasn’t calculated what all three levels of government would have to pay to own the facility outright.


It is great to hear Joe Ramia's viewpoint and that he is open to other financing plans. Hopefully the cost of owning the convention centre would be no more than the capital lease and the bond should be about 2% less than 6.6% (The Halifax International Airport Authority is paying less than 5% for its 25 year bonds according to a story in the allnovascotia.com yesterday). I assume that with the current dirt cheap interest rates a shorter 10 - 15 year bond would be even less (does someone know the current provincial rate?) Why not pay it off over a 10 - 15 year period and pay very little in financing charges?

This view below looks much better. It is great to see them getting away from the fake historical type facade.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/11-03-10_ArgyleNight_0.jpg NICE - it has shred its ugly duckling exterior :tup: :tup:

Referring to the view below, I like how they have emphasized the arches which support the Grafton Street pedway and Ballroom ceiling. This is an architectural feature that people might like to see (I would).
http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/Business_Centre_Night_Provincial_11-03-10_NAGC5AR_0.jpg

[isaidso]

Looks fabulous.

[beyeas]

Nice.

A few things that catch my eye...

The black and white render is VERY different in terms of the tower. This would seem to indicate that major changes are in still in flux.

The fact that there will be a period for public input into the final design details should help people feel more involved.

Also, ideas like having a skating rink in the galleria area again might help people feel like this is a more "public" facility than they might have thought, rather than only a place for visitors to go.

And also good to hear that the ownership issue is still in play.

Based on all this I would say that, if the province gets its act together, there is still a chance that this may play out the way it should have all along.

[MonctonRad]

This will be a fantastic project! :)

But it won't matter, it will still be too tall and will block the view of the oil refinery from Citadel Hill, so the "save the view" freaks will continue their campaign. :hell:

I guess since the galleria may contain a rink, that they didn't need to build the four-ice complex on Hammonds Plains Road after all. :haha:

[hoser111]

" reminiscent of sails and a tower that looks like a lighthouse at night."

I'll reserve judgement until I see better drawings, but there's that word again! Shoot me now!

[Dartboy]

This is a great step in repairing the process. The process was getting worse than the CWG. The skeptical public just wants some more info. Dialogue and willingness to make it happen is what we need. More transparency on the financials hopefully comes next week.

[MonctonRad]

" reminiscent of sails and a tower that looks like a lighthouse at night."

I'll reserve judgement until I see better drawings, but there's that word again! Shoot me now!

Hey, we've got a lighthouse at Casino NB in Moncton too.

Of course, with us it's worse...........the casino is about 5 km inland from the Petitcodiac, which is in turn about 50 km upriver from Shepody Bay. :haha:

[fenwick16]

I believe that they are thinking in terms of a very modern lighthouse like in the image below. However, if it adds extra height then the Save the View group will be up in arms (again).

(source: Chronicle Herald story originally posted above by planarchy)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/Business_Centre_Night_Provincial_11-03-10_NAGC5AR_0.jpg

[isaidso]

Is there a 'kill the view' lobby group in Halifax?

[q12]

Is there a 'kill the view' lobby group in Halifax?

Sign me up.

Those new renderings look fantastic.

[haligonia]

Hey, we've got a lighthouse at Casino NB in Moncton too.

Of course, with us it's worse...........the casino is about 5 km inland from the Petitcodiac, which is in turn about 50 km upriver from Shepody Bay. :haha:

That casino is one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen.

[MonctonRad]

That casino is one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen.

Yes, but it certainly catches your attention from the highway, doesn't it! :haha:

Seriously, the casino itself and the palladium (performance centre) aren't bad, but I absolutely agree with you that the hotel itself is butt-ugly. I don't know what they were thinking about with that garish red sheet metal roof! :yuck: :hell: Again, I suppose it was designed that way to maximize visibilty but Geeeez.

The inside of the hotel is OK.