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

[CorbeauNoir]

Anyway Ramia is being reported now as saying the land could sit vacant if He doesnt get his way. secondly he is also saying that Plans B and C without the convention center would obviously be much smaller but would make more money and that the current proposal makes the least amount of money

What the hell ARE 'Plans B and C'? He keeps referencing them but I don't think I've ever encountered any information as to what those backups would actually be.

[beyeas]

He described that in the presentation apparently yesterday.
Basically it partly surround the height limits that would come into play if this doesn't go forward as the CC, which would be from 6-9 stories on the two blocks.

Option B is a smaller hotel (like 100 rooms rather than 400) and a smaller office building, and would likely be a few years off before starting.

Option C is to do it as a collection of smaller buildings (up to 5 buildings) built over a 10-15 year time period.

[beyeas]

secondly he is also saying that Plans B and C without the convention center would obviously be much smaller but would make more money and that the current proposal makes the least amount of money.

Frankly I am calling hogwash on that. I dont like the way he has started to change his angle in the media. When he first came out he was playing it smart. Now he is not.

I believe him that any other options would be on a much much longer time scale, and that he would make more money "potentially". I think that is totally true.

What it does gloss over though is that the reason why he would be ok with making "less" money is that this project also likely carries with it less overall risk, and will probably easier to get financed.

[Dmajackson]

The Committee of the Whole is on now and the links to the reports presented today are available on the HRM Regional Council Agenda Page (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/November92010CommitteeoftheWhole.html)

They are talking about the powerpoint right now (FAQ on agenda page).

[halifaxboyns]

Nothing wrong with him having plan B and Plan C. He doesn't need to reveal it.

[Dartboy]

I just logged on. the info coming and going and the various parties taking shots at one another playting the media off with the public - all hard on the head.

[q12]

Daytime rendering, which Joe Ramia is saying is still very much fluid and will likely change again with more input.
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/584/40766189.jpg
Source Haligonia.ca (Screenshot)

Watching some online, quite interesting listening to Scott Ferguson and Joe Ramia. Council seems to be quite positive with their questions to them for the most part which gives me a good feeling that this will proceed. :tup:

[halifaxboyns]

I'm finding the debate council is having quite interesting.
I ended up going home sick because I feel aweful and wasn't sure if there was anymore debate going on. I'm happy to see there is some going on; despite the fact i'm cuddled up in blankets lol.

[fenwick16]

I'm finding the debate council is having quite interesting.
I ended up going home sick because I feel aweful and wasn't sure if there was anymore debate going on. I'm happy to see there is some going on; despite the fact i'm cuddled up in blankets lol.

Yes the HRM council has asked good questions and has been diplomatic in their questions to Joe Ramia. I also think that Joe Ramia is very impressive. Just imagine if Nova Scotia had another 100 or more businessmen like Joe Ramia, it would be in a far better financial state.

Regarding being sick halifaxboyns, I swear by the herb ECHINACEA. If I get a cold or flu, I start taking it and I feel better within a few days.

PS: Part of the Nova Centre will be residential. If Joe Ramia can't sell enough office space then he will convert more of it to residential. Regardless, some will be residential. This project just keeps getting better and better.

[halifaxboyns]

Yes the HRM council has asked good questions and has been diplomatic in their questions to Joe Ramia. I also think that Joe Ramia is very impressive. Just imagine if Nova Scotia had another 100 or more businessmen like Joe Ramia, it would be in a far better financial state.

Regarding being sick halifaxboyns, I swear by the herb ECHINACEA. If I get a cold or flu, I start taking it and I feel better within a few days.

I think Harvey is pontificating and that's fine; let them pontificate.
I'm only home sick because I'm exausted working on a project I'm working on. Plus I have a big exam for my professional designation as an urban planner this weekend; so it's all good.

I think Joe has been reasonable in his response and he's quite comfortable with dealing with council. I pity the HRM staff member this morning; I worked with Jim and he seemed all over the place which is not normally him.

I'm curious who these financial and insurance companies are? Anyone have any ideas?

[Empire]

Dr. Colonel Sanders is just the nitwit that I suspected he was. He is actually saying that you can't build a Convention Centre because everyone else is and there will be too much competition.

What is so amazing is that we are not talking about risking 1-2 billion dollars. 46+ million is a minimal amount for the net benefit.

What we are talking about is a legally blocked view from the citadel.

[halifaxboyns]

Dr. Colonel Sanders is just the nitwit that I suspected he was. He is actually saying that you can't build a Convention Centre because everyone else is and there will be too much competition.

What is so amazing is that we are not talking about risking 1-2 billion dollars. 46+ million is a minimal amount for the net benefit.

What we are talking about is a legally blocked view from the citadel.
Colonel Sanders, that made me laugh. Perhaps he should double down? :)

[Empire]

Colonel Sanders, that made me laugh. Perhaps he should double down? :)

Perhaps Dal shouldn't spend 600 million on their facilities. I'm sure UPEI, UNB or U of T are spending money on upgrades so therefore everyone will go there instead. What a risk of taxpayers money Bruce! Dr. Sanders.

[halifaxboyns]

The staff presentation on taxation is certainly interesting - answers a lot of questions for me.

Certainly pokes a lot of holes in Pacey's arguments and letter to the Herald.

[Keith P.]

I just wish someone had asked Col. Sanders the question: since the Save the View crew who brought you in have been shown to have lied and distributed misinformation about this project at every opportunity, why should anyone believe a word you say?

It is clear that the left-wingers -- Epstein, Pacey, et al -- have mounted a very aggressive campaign against this project based on the finances and cost. Left-wingers would rather put that money into black holes like health care and welfare than economic development projects. Normally the business community would be able to shout them down pretty easily using facts. But in this case the lefties have been louder in the comments section of the Herald and the rest of the media, while the business community has not been that vocal. Why? Offered for your approval: is it because the NDP govt is supporting this since they know it is needed for the economy, but the business community does not trust them and therefore will not ally themselves with them to defend this?

[Empire]

Companies like Daewoo are setting up in NS to tap the US market. Guess what, Halifax is closer to Europe that all of the U.S. What a great place to have a convention.

[halifaxboyns]

Companies like Daewoo are setting up in NS to tap the US market. Guess what, Halifax is closer to Europe that all of the U.S. What a great place to have a convention.

Halifax is the last stop on the European circle route for air travel. St. John's is off the circle - so we're better positioned from a transportation perspective.

Keith> I took a nap and only tuned in for the last 45 minutes; did Sanders actually speak to council or are you refering to him on the news?

I find it interesting that the office tower will also have some residential - that's new to me; but very interesting. Would be one hell of a view!

[Dmajackson]

I watched some of the presentations when my class stopped learning things early this morning (like 11ish or something) and somehow managed to stay awake long enough to hear a colleague present and for council to take a lunch break. From what I heard it was well presented and staff were answering many of the important questions in a fair manner.

I can only handle som much economic and taxation talk so I only saw small segments of the council debate. What I did see was fair and mostly positive.

[halifaxboyns]

I rather like the fact that the finance staff have been clear in their presentation that it's easier to quantify losses and negative effects to the city than it would be the economic spin offs.

I think the Councillor Sloane's comment about the centre being eco-friendly is a reasonable as well. I was unaware that this was going to be lead gold; I suspect I missed that - I know here in Calgary, any City projects must achieve at least lead gold if not platinum. I know Alderman Druh Farrell pushes that at planning commission all the time.

For me; I can see the potential economic impacts and spin off's easily, versus the negatives. Obviously the spin offs would be greater occupancy and demand for hotels during convention season (negative would be more empty rooms in the low season), more demand for hotels in general, if more corporate offices (new businesses move here) the jobs and need for more office space, tourism, downtown business benefits (restaurants, stores, etc.) and certainly potential increased tourism (visitors, transportation (rail, car and flights)).

The negatives i can see would be the centre is a complete flop needing tax dollars to fund operations or be bought out. The office space issue has been brought up as well; could create such a huge vacancy rate that there would be no further need for years.

I guess for me - I'm willing to accept staff's recommendation and efforts to lower the risk and I'd go for it. You can't make money without spending money.

[someone123]

I glanced at the Colonel's white paper but to be honest it took too long to find useful information aside from sweeping claims that sound plausible but are very general and would need to be backed up with lots of data and careful arguments to be credible. You'd think that if this were as cut-and-dried as he seems to present it there would be some big graphs somewhere showing how poorly the industry is doing.

Even if many of his points are correct they may not be relevant to Halifax. I'm sure if you are in, say, Columbus, and Cleveland and Cincinatti are building $500M convention centres there might be too much competition for the same conferences. In the Maritimes, however, Halifax is by far the largest city in a very large radius. With the Nova Centre there would be no regional competition for major events.

Another key point is that there is a lot of value to holding big events, even if they primarily attract locals. People enjoy going to things like car shows and there's a benefit to being able to have events of a certain scale in the Maritimes. Without the Nova Centre these events would simply not take place and people in the region would lose out. This is a benefit that isn't properly captured by focusing only on net monetary gains for the government.

His paper also points out a lot of things that sound pretty bad but aren't true in the case of the Nova Centre proposal. The public-sector budget for this project is fairly small and does not involve subsidies for the hotel or office tower.

My guess is that in his poorly attended conference here (the industry is dying you know) he is presenting canned information of questionable relevance. No doubt the Save the View crowd will find it very easy to cheer along despite the fact that the contribution is not particularly useful.

[Empire]

I rather like the fact that the finance staff have been clear in their presentation that it's easier to quantify losses and negative effects to the city than it would be the economic spin offs.

I think the Councillor Sloane's comment about the centre being eco-friendly is a reasonable as well. I was unaware that this was going to be lead gold; I suspect I missed that - I know here in Calgary, any City projects must achieve at least lead gold if not platinum. I know Alderman Druh Farrell pushes that at planning commission all the time.

For me; I can see the potential economic impacts and spin off's easily, versus the negatives. Obviously the spin offs would be greater occupancy and demand for hotels during convention season (negative would be more empty rooms in the low season), more demand for hotels in general, if more corporate offices (new businesses move here) the jobs and need for more office space, tourism, downtown business benefits (restaurants, stores, etc.) and certainly potential increased tourism (visitors, transportation (rail, car and flights)).

The negatives i can see would be the centre is a complete flop needing tax dollars to fund operations or be bought out. The office space issue has been brought up as well; could create such a huge vacancy rate that there would be no further need for years.

I guess for me - I'm willing to accept staff's recommendation and efforts to lower the risk and I'd go for it. You can't make money without spending money.

There has been negative growth in downtown in the past twenty years so it is puzzling to listen to Watts oppose an opportunity to reverse that trend.

[someone123]

There has been negative growth in downtown in the past twenty years so it is puzzling to listen to Watts oppose an opportunity to reverse that trend.

My impression of Watts is that she is a terrible form of BANANA councillor who just has a problem with development in general unless it strictly adheres to a narrow social agenda.

It is sad how in Halifax good goals like sustainable transportation and affordable housing get mixed in with incompatible anti-development hysteria. Many people do not appreciate the big picture. This kind of thing happens way too much in politics in general, where people who share some similarities band together and create a bizarre tribalist political culture that is not even self-consistent, let alone helpful as a way to govern.

[halifaxboyns]

As much as I keep wanting to ignore the skeptical HRM side of me; I'm still slightly concerned that this may be the biblical solution to downtown - I don't see it that way, merely a good start. It's like Ramia said; it's been what - 20 years since anything got built in downtown? To me, if this project gets built and it does kick start any construction - that's a win. I'm guessing or suspecting that if anything - the construction that might get started would be more residential or hotel.

Frankly, if Twisted Sisters can't be built as office and hotel space - I'd love to see it become a hotel and condo building. For me, the block below it (on Lower Water Street) would be a great spot to take down those older office buildings and replace them with residential (but that's just me).

I'm shocked that Captain negative's presentation was poorly attended (note sarcasm). Like you said; attendance is down. I hope they took a huge dive on that, because bringing people like him is not cheap. I'm on the Calgary events committee for the Provincial Planning Association (APPI) and we are trying to get Avi Freedman to come in for a couple days. The cost is incredible, but fortunately budgets aren't as tight anymore!

[CorbeauNoir]

The negatives i can see would be the centre is a complete flop needing tax dollars to fund operations or be bought out. The office space issue has been brought up as well; could create such a huge vacancy rate that there would be no further need for years.

I'd feel a little bit better about the project if one of those towers were residential or something. Downtown seems like it's in more need of higher density than extra hotels or office space.

[fenwick16]

Based on the allnovascotia.com, the HRM council voted in favour at 11:15 PM to proceed with the next step of negotiating a better deal with the province. Good for allnovascotia.com - they got the vote into the story with only minutes remaining prior to the on-line publishing deadline. Thumbs up to the HRM council for showing optimism in the future of the Halifax area.

Question - will another vote be required once a better deal is negoiated?

[someone123]

I agree that the main problem downtown is a lack of street-level activity. This would mostly be helped by having more residents.

The United Gulf towers were to have 200+ condo units but I am not optimistic about them being built. Not sure why residential projects in the old core have been nonexistent when they've been so popular all around it, even in the North End.

[fenwick16]

I missed the number, but I thought that it was stated that there would be 50 - 100 residential units in the Nova Centre. Possibly more if an insufficient amount of office space is sold since any surplus will be converted to residential.

[CorbeauNoir]

I missed the number, but I thought that it was stated that there would be 50 - 100 residential units in the Nova Centre. Possibly more if an insufficient amount of office space is sold since any surplus will be converted to residential.

Great to hear if true. Makes sense to have the CC offices at the site but beyond that the space definitely seems much better served as housing.

[fenwick16]

There will still be office, hotel, retail and the CC, but in addition according to Joe Ramia there will be residential - he stated this at the meeting last night when I watched on Haligonia.ca. It was good to hear since the downtown core certainly needs more residential. I would expect that area to be a popular residential area since it is so close to Spring Garden Road. I am not sure if it will be condo or rental apartments.

[Keith P.]

There has been negative growth in downtown in the past twenty years so it is puzzling to listen to Watts oppose an opportunity to reverse that trend.

Nothing is puzzling about her opposition. She is staunchly anti-development and is a total wingnut. Why the people of her district continue to elect the likes of her and her mentor, Kommissar Epstein, baffles me.

My impression of Watts is that she is a terrible form of BANANA councillor who just has a problem with development in general unless it strictly adheres to a narrow social agenda.


Watts have proven herself to be a clone, or perhaps more accurately, a puppet, of Howard Epstein and supports every HT position put forward to date. She is on the wrong side of just about every big issue, while championing such ridiculous items as urban chickens and bans on bottled water.

I understand the vote had only 2 councillors opposed. I presume that one was Watts. Any idea who the other was? Harvey perhaps?

I'm shocked that Captain negative's presentation was poorly attended (note sarcasm). Like you said; attendance is down. I hope they took a huge dive on that, because bringing people like him is not cheap.

I find it shocking that they put him on an airplane and contributed to greenhouse gases by flying him here. Why didn't they hook him to a videoconference setup from Texas, since that is what they were claiming was going to make a convention center like this obsolete? Could it be that their claim of that, like everything else they have put forward, was false?

[Northend Guy]

Here is the article from the herald on the city's decision:

HRM council backs convention centre
City hopes to deal down from $56-million contribution
By LAURA FRASER Staff Reporter
Wed, Nov 10 - 7:10 AM
Halifax regional councillors have put their support behind the $159-million convention centre proposed for downtown, declaring they will begin negotiations with the province immediately.

The announcement came at 11:30 p.m. Tuesday after more than 13 hours of presentations and a closed-door session.

Although the province asked that the municipality match its contribution of $56 million, discussion around the council table Tuesday suggested the request is just a starting point.

Council has "got good arguments to negotiate a better deal," the municipality’s manager for tax and fiscal policy said during a marathon meeting of committee of the whole.

Bruce Fisher said the province needs to take the lead on the project, which he predicted would revitalize the downtown core and add to property tax revenues.

The negotiating points between the city and the province will likely include the Dexter government’s request to be exempt from paying property taxes on the convention centre.

"We don’t have anybody tax-free in the HRM," Coun. Gloria McCluskey (Dartmouth Centre) said during council’s discussions.

Council met Tuesday expecting to hear a presentation from staff about the risks and benefits associated with entering into negotiations with the province over the proposed business complex. Instead, most of the day was spent hearing from various stakeholders and experts, including developer Joe Ramia of Rank Inc., urban policy professor Heywood Sanders of Texas, and Trade Centre Ltd., the provincial Crown corporation that will manage the new building.

Council’s decision likely came as a relief to Ramia, who said earlier in the day that the fate of the rest of his $500-million vision of a financial tower and hotel complex rested on the convention centre coming to fruition.

He said he has four Fortune 500 companies interested in leasing space in the financial centre.

Sanders, an academic brought to Halifax by opponents of the convention centre project, warned that convention business has been declining since 2000.

Ramia said he hopes to have the contract finalized by January, with the possibility of excavation beginning by March.

What will happen with the current World Trade and Convention Centre remains unclear. The province has asked the municipality to take it over, but staff said Tuesday that negotiations are not contingent on that happening.

Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) suggested the space be turned into an arts and cultural centre. Municipal staff will look at that possibility and other alternatives before reporting to council.

( lfraser@herald.ca)

[PoscStudent]

^ The two easier governments to get on board have come forward but the feeral government is still needed and that's the cash that will be the hardest to get.

[fenwick16]

^ The two easier governments to get on board have come forward but the feeral government is still needed and that's the cash that will be the hardest to get.

I would have to disagree with this. If you check you will see that the federal government almost always supports conventions centres since they consider it to be an economic generator. This holds true right across Canada regardless of the provincial government in power (I checked this previously and made up a list). The only question is whether or not the federal government will support a leasing arrangement - if not, then the HRM and province would have to finance it differently.

Here is one such plan that specifically mentions convention centres: (source: http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/bg-di/bg-di-fs-fr-eng.html )
Building Canada: Stronger, Safer, Better

The Government of Canada unveiled the details of its historic $33-billion infrastructure plan. Called “Building Canada”, this infrastructure plan is building a stronger, safer and better Canada, providing more funding, over a longer period of time, from 2007 to 2014, than any previous federal infrastructure initiative.

Categories eligible for funding

Building Canada will help support a stronger Canadian economy by investing in infrastructure that contributes to increased trade, efficient movement of goods and people, and economic growth. This will include projects such as improvements to the core National Highway System, short-line railways, short-sea shipping, regional and local airports, broadband, and convention centres.

[q12]

Nothing is puzzling about her opposition. She is staunchly anti-development and is a total wingnut. Why the people of her district continue to elect the likes of her and her mentor, Kommissar Epstein, baffles me.

Watts have proven herself to be a clone, or perhaps more accurately, a puppet, of Howard Epstein and supports every HT position put forward to date. She is on the wrong side of just about every big issue, while championing such ridiculous items as urban chickens and bans on bottled water.

I understand the vote had only 2 councillors opposed. I presume that one was Watts. Any idea who the other was? Harvey perhaps?



On News 95.7 Maritime Morning, Jordi Morgon had Sue Uteck and Tim Outhit on and Sue said it was Jennifer Watts and Jackie Barkhouse who voted against it.

After watching some of the questions Watts and Barkhouse asked last night during the session, I'd say they are not only Anti-Development but also just incompetent Councillors in general.

[beyeas]

I find it shocking that they put him on an airplane and contributed to greenhouse gases by flying him here. Why didn't they hook him to a videoconference setup from Texas, since that is what they were claiming was going to make a convention center like this obsolete? Could it be that their claim of that, like everything else they have put forward, was false?

Roger Taylor made the exact same tongue-in-cheek point in his column this morning:
The fact that University of Texas-San Antonio Prof. Heywood Sanders, predictor of doom for the convention sector, came to Halifax to support the case of those who oppose the complex seems to say something.

He could have presented his views by video link, bypassing the need to appear in person, but hearing and seeing someone in the flesh is still a more effective way of communicating complicated arguments.

Sanders’ personal appearance in Halifax seems to add to the argument that holding conventions, where many delegates gather to exchange ideas, still has merit.

Nice to see them being called out on this stuff so strongly, given that HT and STV have largely had a free pass in recent years with few people publically at least calling their bluff.

[Dmajackson]

On News 95.7 Maritime Morning, Jordi Morgon had Sue Uteck and Tim Outhit on and Sue said it was Jennifer Watts and Jackie Barkhouse who voted against it.

After watching some of the questions Watts and Barkhouse asked last night during the session, I'd say they are not only Anti-Development but also just incompetent Councillors in general.

You just answered the question I was about to ask.

Watts being against it is not surprising at all. She is good for the green movement and issues related to active transportation but development wise she is very backwards.

To be honest I was thinking the other nay-sayer was Barkhouse simply because she's so quiet, Blumenthal (anti-development), or Fisher because he's new.

[halifaxboyns]

It was Watts and Barkhouse.
I'm not surprised about Watts but Barkhouse being so quiet; you can never know what she's up too.
I suspect she may not have been in support of business case and voted no because she wanted a better deal? I'm guessing here.

This is good though; administration knows that they need to go back and get a better deal.

[PoscStudent]

I would have to disagree with this. If you check you will see that the federal government almost always supports conventions centres since they consider it to be an economic generator. This holds true right across Canada regardless of the provincial government in power (I checked this previously and made up a list). The only question is whether or not the federal government will support a leasing arrangement - if not, then the HRM and province would have to finance it differently.

Here is one such plan that specifically mentions convention centres: (source: http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/bg-di/bg-di-fs-fr-eng.html )

We have a $56 billion deficit now though and are waiting to recieve probably the toughest budget in Canadian history.

[halifaxboyns]

We have a $56 billion deficit now though and are waiting to recieve probably the toughest budget in Canadian history.

A number of convention centres got money - especially Vancouver's (although that was mainly due to the olympics I'd guess). I know Calgary's convention centre got some $ because I remember seeing the sign.

[Jonovision]

I sat at council for most of the proceedings yesterday but had to leave before Joe gave his presentation. I was also in attendance at Dr Saunders lecture the night before.

Some impressions:
Dr. Saunders during his lecture was rude, and condescending. Anytime someone would get up to ask him a real question he would cut them off and continue talking. His argument was quite weak and pulled together from ad hoc numbers that if truly analyzed did not show any discrepancies.

When council passed a motion in the morning to invite him in to present to them I was stunned. I think it set a bad precedent. As stunned as I was however, after watching his half hour presentation and then see council ask for clarifications for an hour and a half I was pleasantly surprised. I think it turned out for the better that he was there. They were polite and charming in their discussions with him and it seemed almost non of them took his argument seriously. Following him Scott Ferguson of TCL got up to present and within the first 5 minutes had totally disintegrated Saunders argument through explaining the difference between the numbers that were the basis of his argument.

I wish I could have seen the rest but I was very happy with the way council conducted itself and I'm glad to read in the news this morning that things are moving forward.

[macgregor]

Some impressions:
Dr. Saunders during his lecture was rude, and condescending. Anytime someone would get up to ask him a real question he would cut them off and continue talking. His argument was quite weak and pulled together from ad hoc numbers that if truly analyzed did not show any discrepancies.

Sometimes I like to argue against common sense for fun with friends, but this guy makes a living out of it! That's impressive. It reminds me of the movie 'Thank you for Smoking'.

A few days ago ATV's Steve Murphy interviewed Col. Sanders (con side) and a woman (pro side). The Colonel came of as smug and making sweeping generalizations, the woman wasn't very convincing either, but it was good to have the public discussion.

[halifaxboyns]

I think the problem with his numbers is that exactly what the industry has pointed out. The data set he chose was a year before the North American dot com bubble burst, but didn't come into today. My understanding is he took numbers from 1988 to 2002.

Hmmm lets see - what happened during those times? Dot com burst and...oh wait, oh yeah! 9/11! Wow, that's not slanted dated or anything?

If he took a much broader data set (say from 1975 to today) then I'm sure we could see a pattern and his argument would be very weak. Attendance goes down when the economy goes into recession or decline.

I think the fact he comes off smug and rude, really doesn't surprise me. Every article I've read said the same thing.

And I agree with Keith - I was particularly fond of the comment in the herald today that this guy could've attended via a phone link or video conference, but he chose to come here. Like the author said - being in person helps us better to articulate and understand our positions better.

[David1gray]

halifaxboyns, i just read your comment on CBC's website. i couldnt agree more with your comments. the view plane from brightwood makes no sense at all. and this is a city which is growing. i cant believe how many people have posted negative comments there.

[PoscStudent]

A number of convention centres got money - especially Vancouver's (although that was mainly due to the olympics I'd guess). I know Calgary's convention centre got some $ because I remember seeing the sign.

That was also during the stimulus spending time which will end in a few months. Hopefully they will fork over the money because St. John's is planning on building on a piece to their convention centre and $20 odd million from the feds would be pretty good.

[fenwick16]

That was also during the stimulus spending time which will end in a few months. Hopefully they will fork over the money because St. John's is planning on building on a piece to their convention centre and $20 odd million from the feds would be pretty good.

The stimulus program is set to expire soon as you state. However, most news sources are stating that the funding for the Halifax convention centre would be from a different federal program which was initiated in 2007 (before the stimulus program) and currently has funding committed up to the year 2014. That is the "Building Canada Fund" as the illustration below shows. It might be out of the Public-Private Partnerships Fund shown below in an orange box.

(source: http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/index-eng.html )
http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/images/bc-fa-ap-lg-eng.jpg

One of the infrastructure programs that they fund are convention centres:

(source: http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/bg-di/bg-di-fs-fr-eng.html )
Building Canada will help support a stronger Canadian economy by investing in infrastructure that contributes to increased trade, efficient movement of goods and people, and economic growth. This will include projects such as improvements to the core National Highway System, short-line railways, short-sea shipping, regional and local airports, broadband, and convention centres.

[Keith P.]

On News 95.7 Maritime Morning, Jordi Morgon had Sue Uteck and Tim Outhit on and Sue said it was Jennifer Watts and Jackie Barkhouse who voted against it.

After watching some of the questions Watts and Barkhouse asked last night during the session, I'd say they are not only Anti-Development but also just incompetent Councillors in general.

Interesting that the two of them teamed up to buy an ad in the Coast this week congratulating the third member of the unholy trio, Sloane, who inexplicably won "Best Councillor" award in that paper's annual nonsensical poll of readers and professional ballot box stuffers. Even more sad is that our property tax dollars probably paid for the ad.

Barkhouse, is a former union organizer and like Watts, is a hardcore NDPer. It is therefore no surprise that she is against spending on economic growth and business initiatives.

[halifaxboyns]

halifaxboyns, i just read your comment on CBC's website. i couldnt agree more with your comments. the view plane from brightwood makes no sense at all. and this is a city which is growing. i cant believe how many people have posted negative comments there.

Not surprised one bit - remember, Nova Scotian's love to complain. My latest post reminded everyone that all parties supported the centre. However, I don't see they've posted that; so I suspect either the forum moderator has gone home or they decided not to post it.

I think this project is a step in the right direction; but is one to open up a broader conversation (like I've said before) in order to look at how we grow. We can either have the conversation now or as part of the next regional plan, but I think it should be now. You can do a vision exercise now that forms part of the next regional plan, that's how Calgary did it.

[Dartboy]

I think that Council made a wise choice to move forward. WE do need to explore this opportunity. We need to get through the numbers and the deal. They keep calling it a 500 Million Project and our piece is 140 million backing out the financing. I still have no idea if that 500 is the entire project. If so, then we seem to be paying a disproportionate amount.

now my second point is where is the 2009-2010 TLC annual report for year end March 31, 2010? this seems quite late. edit its there now

[someone123]

I think that Council made a wise choice to move forward. WE do need to explore this opportunity. We need to get through the numbers and the deal. They keep calling it a 500 Million Project and our piece is 140 million backing out the financing. I still have no idea if that 500 is the entire project. If so, then we seem to be paying a disproportionate amount.

The convention centre is the only public part of this proposal but is only about one third of what is planned for the site. The $500M figure includes a privately-built hotel and office tower.

The $140M is the total public cost for the convention centre component that will be split between the three levels of government.

[fenwick16]

I think that Council made a wise choice to move forward. WE do need to explore this opportunity. We need to get through the numbers and the deal. They keep calling it a 500 Million Project and our piece is 140 million backing out the financing. I still have no idea if that 500 is the entire project. If so, then we seem to be paying a disproportionate amount.

If it is compared with the new Central Library then it seems to be reasonable. The new Central Library would be 109,000 Gross square feet and the convention centre would be 306,000 Gross Square feet (as stated by Joe Ramia to the HRM council last night). So if you work out a proportional cost based on the Central Library the cost would be:

306,000/109,000 x $55M = $154.4M

And just remember that over half of that square footage of the convention centre is 30 foot high ceilings (3 times the height of a normal residential or hotel level, and about 2 times the height of a normal Class A office level).

[Dartboy]

Fen thanks for the comparison.seems the 140 is a good number - I guess I would prefer a free standing center. Anyway.TCL numbers are on website - take a look at 5 year trend for TCL and specifically the convention center.

http://www.advocateprinting.biz/tcl/ar0910/pageflip.html

[fenwick16]

The Coast and Tim Bousquet had a short story about the HRM council deliberations yesterday. He actually sounds less strongly against it than in past articles (he must like the new design ;) ). He also seems to like the Simpsons - he gives his version of the televised council session. Here is the story - http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2010/11/10/council-votes-to-move-forward-with-convention-centre-negotiations

[fenwick16]

Fen thanks for the comparison.seems the 140 is a good number - I guess I would prefer a free standing center. Anyway.TCL numbers are on website - take a look at 5 year trend for TCL and specifically the convention center.

http://www.advocateprinting.biz/tcl/ar0910/pageflip.html

That is an interesting link - you can look at that either way. It had an impressive growth rate during the 3 years between 2005/2006 and 2008/2009, prior to the recession when it started to decrease. The economy will eventually start to improve, so the convention centre will be complete at a time when the economy is doing well again and more people are traveling and spending money.

[halifaxboyns]

One thing I found interesting in council's deliberations yesterday was a comment that Dawn Sloane made. It was in regards to the old WTCC and looking at going back to get a better deal - which certainly the HRM finance staff did a great job in presenting (yes HRM could get a better deal and should).

She asked staff to look into the possibility of using the old WTCC as some sort of cultural space - now she wasn't specific but for some reason that resonated with me.

There is a lack of cultural space (so I am told) and where better to have some of it than in the central downtown. I thought it was an interesting avenue to look at and certainly her comments in favour of public art for this project had merit too.

Now realizing this; Bruce Devanne will step in to stop it. He's the kind of person that would cut out transit and tell people that if they can't afford cabs or cars to hitch-hike.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Daytime rendering, which Joe Ramia is saying is still very much fluid and will likely change again with more input.
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/584/40766189.jpg
Source Haligonia.ca (Screenshot)

Watching some online, quite interesting listening to Scott Ferguson and Joe Ramia. Council seems to be quite positive with their questions to them for the most part which gives me a good feeling that this will proceed. :tup:

I told you guys that there would be a better design!

This looks great!

[Empire]

One thing I found interesting in council's deliberations yesterday was a comment that Dawn Sloane made. It was in regards to the old WTCC and looking at going back to get a better deal - which certainly the HRM finance staff did a great job in presenting (yes HRM could get a better deal and should).

She asked staff to look into the possibility of using the old WTCC as some sort of cultural space - now she wasn't specific but for some reason that resonated with me.

There is a lack of cultural space (so I am told) and where better to have some of it than in the central downtown. I thought it was an interesting avenue to look at and certainly her comments in favour of public art for this project had merit too.

Now realizing this; Bruce Devanne will step in to stop it. He's the kind of person that would cut out transit and tell people that if they can't afford cabs or cars to hitch-hike.

Bruce has been rather silent lately, perhaps he is confused?
Maybe the old trade centre could become a Performing Arts Centre? Being connected to the Met the possibilities would be endless not to mention funding should be available..

[Dartboy]

That is an interesting link - you can look at that either way. It had an impressive growth rate during the 3 years between 2005/2006 and 2008/2009, prior to the recession when it started to decrease. The economy will eventually start to improve, so the convention centre will be complete at a time when the economy is doing well again and more people are traveling and spending money.

again even number that are objective can be viewed in different ways. I see a spike in 08/09 but essentially flat to slightly inclining revs and declining attendance. However what I didnty point out was the incredible decline in visitor expenditures on that first page. I know that on another report at TCL there is a lot more detail on local versus away delegates. obviosuly away delegates spend a lot more than local ones. But direct expenditures of $74 Million last year versus $100 Million as thw worst of any of the previous 4 reported years,

WHAT if the economy doesn't IMPROVE? What if Convention center as an industry does not recover?

WE own our own place now. WE want to now lease a space and commit for 25 years and have nothing at the end. I am still not 100% comfortable with it but am willing to move ahead and see where these negotiations bring us. Some comment on the CBC or Herald was really to the point. He was a businessman but his statement was " How many businesses does this really impact?" so I gave that some thought. Downtown businesses for sure. Bars resteraunts clothing stores, Hotels cabs and airlines for sure. And the obvious suppliers to those businesses.

SO lets continue the process but I am wary

[Empire]

again even number that are objective can be viewed in different ways. I see a spike in 08/09 but essentially flat to slightly inclining revs and declining attendance. However what I didnty point out was the incredible decline in visitor expenditures on that first page. I know that on another report at TCL there is a lot more detail on local versus away delegates. obviosuly away delegates spend a lot more than local ones. But direct expenditures of $74 Million last year versus $100 Million as thw worst of any of the previous 4 reported years,

WHAT if the economy doesn't IMPROVE? What if Convention center as an industry does not recover?

WE own our own place now. WE want to now lease a space and commit for 25 years and have nothing at the end. I am still not 100% comfortable with it but am willing to move ahead and see where these negotiations bring us. Some comment on the CBC or Herald was really to the point. He was a businessman but his statement was " How many businesses does this really impact?" so I gave that some thought. Downtown businesses for sure. Bars resteraunts clothing stores, Hotels cabs and airlines for sure. And the obvious suppliers to those businesses.

SO lets continue the process but I am wary

Again, we are not talking about a huge sum of money. This is not billions, it is a few million. This amount of money is spent endlessly by government on income tax rebates, ACOA incentives and capital projects such as the fourplex and library. The difference is that this project can realize a real return in terms of jobs, economic spinoff, development stimulus, tourism etc. In addition, this development will have a 4 1/2 star hotel with 400 rooms and this does not currently exist in the city. The office tower will be class A space and have the potential to attract major financial firms because the complex has a 4.5 star hotel and a tier 2 convention centre. I would challenge STV, Colonel Sanders and Bruce to table a different economic plan (not a convention centre) where this type of activity can be generated with the same amount of tax payers dollars and potentially make a profit down the road!

[JustinMacD]

lol @ the Save The View Facebook group:

Liz MacDougall Letters to the Chronicle Herald re: convention centre 3:1 against
Votes from City Councilors re: convention centre 22:2 for

I think it's clear that our city councilors are led around by the nose by business interests via Peter Kelly.

--

This woman is using FOUR letters sent to the Chronicle Herald as a way of saying that our councilors aren't listening to Haligonians.

These people are nuts. Completely insane.

[fenwick16]

Bruce has been rather silent lately, perhaps he is confused?
Maybe the old trade centre could become a Performing Arts Centre? Being connected to the Met the possibilities would be endless not to mention funding should be available..

It would certainly be good if the province or HRM would hold onto the old WTCC. There were 49 years between the completion of the old Halifax Forum and the completion of the Metro Centre (1978 - 1929). If that same time period is used before the completion of a new 15,000 seat Metro Centre II, then a new Metro Centre II would need to be completed by the year 2027 (so it would have to be started in the year 2025 which is only 15 years away). If the old WTCC and old Metro Centre were torn down then a 15,000 seat (or larger) Metro Centre II could be built there. Looking at it in other terms, it won't be until 2015 that the Nova Centre would be completed. So a new Metro II will be needed 10 years after the WTCC I has become obsolete. It is interesting that there is the possibility of building a tunnel to the new Nova Centre from the Metro Centre I (or Metro Centre II).

This is how the Winnipeg MTS Centre (15,000 seat arena) would fit at that location.

PS: Maybe we should send the image below to Bruce D. We should give him 15 years to get accustomed to the idea.
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9383/mtsoverhalifaxmetrocent.jpg

[q12]

again even number that are objective can be viewed in different ways. I see a spike in 08/09 but essentially flat to slightly inclining revs and declining attendance. However what I didnty point out was the incredible decline in visitor expenditures on that first page. I know that on another report at TCL there is a lot more detail on local versus away delegates. obviosuly away delegates spend a lot more than local ones. But direct expenditures of $74 Million last year versus $100 Million as thw worst of any of the previous 4 reported years,

WHAT if the economy doesn't IMPROVE? What if Convention center as an industry does not recover?

WE own our own place now. WE want to now lease a space and commit for 25 years and have nothing at the end. I am still not 100% comfortable with it but am willing to move ahead and see where these negotiations bring us. Some comment on the CBC or Herald was really to the point. He was a businessman but his statement was " How many businesses does this really impact?" so I gave that some thought. Downtown businesses for sure. Bars resteraunts clothing stores, Hotels cabs and airlines for sure. And the obvious suppliers to those businesses.

SO lets continue the process but I am wary

Wary of what? The first significant downtown development in Halifax in decades that will be constructed soon and actually includes "Skyscrapers".

This design now looks good, it has a hotel, financial centre, residential, and retail versus a big whole in the ground for two city blocks for the next decade.

[DigitalNinja]

I agree, there is nothing for anyone to be wary about. Sometimes I hate democracy in such a form that everyone gets a say, I tell ya if I was in power...

Anyway, to put into perspective how much is really going into this center, each of the 3 levels of gov are putting in 1/3 basically, maybe less for HRM, not to bad, I don't mind taking money from other provinces.

Also, to show how little this money is, Wadih of W M Fares is worth only a little less than the total cost of this development.

Anything of this amount only seems like a lot because most people don't have it in their pockets.

[musicman]

Let's stop talking about a 15000 seat arena... It is a ridiculous number to put forward considering it is roughly 3000 more that what can be put in there now for Hockey... Aim for 22000 or 23000... Damn Moncton is looking at 15000 right now. 15000 is a joke.

[FuzzyWuz]

Here's something I'd like to see: To reply to those who say that all of the office needs of the CBD could be met with six story buildings why not paint a financial picture of a six story office building going where UG development towers are planned? Start with the price paid for the land, the annual business tax, the cost of putting up the structure, the income generated by leases etc. That would make an interesting discussion piece I would think.

[fenwick16]

Let's stop talking about a 15000 seat arena... It is a ridiculous number to put forward considering it is roughly 3000 more that what can be put in there now for Hockey... Aim for 22000 or 23000... Damn Moncton is looking at 15000 right now. 15000 is a joke.

I am thinking in terms of 15,000 seats for a hockey arena in 10 - 15 years (it could be expandable to 17,000). But first I would like to see a 25,000 seat stadium (which would have a capacity of about 45,000 for concerts). A 22,000 - 23,000 seat arena (for hockey) would be the largest hockey arena in North America (are you really serious about such an idea?).

PS: The 15,051 seat Winnipeg MTS Centre is one of the most successful entertainment venues in the world - http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/mts_centre_19th-busiest_showbiz_venue_in_world38266214.html . I don't see anything ridiculous about that. The current Metro Centre seats 10,595. Are you confusing the seating capacity with the concert capacity that includes people on the arena floor?

PS: Moncton is actually considering a new 9,000 seat arena - http://c103forum.freeforums.org/new-downtown-arena-in-moncton-t496.html

[musicman]

The average NHL hockey arena is in the 18000 to 19000 range if memory serves me correct... So ok i may be a little high but we are aiming for a rink the size that moncton is going to build.. I would say 15000 would be shooting ourselves in the foot .. Why not 18000 expandable to 21000 or 22000.. To spend millions on an arena to gain 3000 seats seems ridiculous to me.

[musicman]

10950 i have been told is seated capacity.... for hockey and even then with that capacity 15000 is still a small venue for arena standards of today let alone 10 or 15 years down the road... We are not going to be building this anytime soon, we need a stadium, amongst many other thing first so we build a 15000 seat arena to last us 10 years which is in all likely hood not going to be built for 10 years. It needs to be expandable to the 20000 to 21000 range so it can grow as the city grows...

[fenwick16]

We have gotten off the Nova Centre topic. My point was that the Metro Centre/WTCC superblock might be good for a larger hockey/basketball arena in the future so maybe selling the WTCC to a private interest might not be a good idea.

Councillor Sloane's idea of a museum sounds good. I remember reading that there are historic artifacts stored in a warehouse in Burnside.

[Empire]

Here's something I'd like to see: To reply to those who say that all of the office needs of the CBD could be met with six story buildings why not paint a financial picture of a six story office building going where UG development towers are planned? Start with the price paid for the land, the annual business tax, the cost of putting up the structure, the income generated by leases etc. That would make an interesting discussion piece I would think.

The six storey plan is destroying the tax base potential downtown. Cambridge Suites, Prince George and Marriott Siutes Inn take up far too much real estate for their return. The city can max out the tax potential on the Herald/Midtown site if the convention centre is built. If it is rejected the tax return will be far lower and the potential for neighbouring assessments to increase will be much less.


- opportunity for 4.5 star hotel (400 rooms)
- opportunity to tap international market for financial services companies
- opportunity to build needed class A office space and not just talk about it like Ben McCrae
- opportunity to eliminate the blight of that site
- opportunity to expand convention business that will have a net positive impact on HRM and the province
- I'm quite sure I have read that some of the best known hotel chains have a min room requirement around the 400 mark

[FuzzyWuz]

The six storey plan is destroying the tax base potential downtown. Cambridge Suites, Prince George and Marriott Siutes Inn take up far too much real estate for their return. The city can max out the tax potential on the Herald/Midtown site if the convention centre is built. If it is rejected the tax return will be far lower and the potential for neighbouring assessments to increase will be much less.


- opportunity for 4.5 star hotel (400 rooms)
- opportunity to tap international market for financial services companies
- opportunity to build needed class A office space and not just talk about it like Ben McCrae
- opportunity to eliminate the blight of that site
- opportunity to expand convention business that will have a net positive impact on HRM and the province
- I'm quite sure I have read that some of the best known hotel chains have a min room requirement around the 400 mark

Excellent. I was asking because I read where Epstein made the six story claim and it would be nice to be able to have something readily available to show him, or anyone, and say, "Here's what your six stories does do our city!"

[Keith P.]

Excellent. I was asking because I read where Epstein made the six story claim and it would be nice to be able to have something readily available to show him, or anyone, and say, "Here's what your six stories does do our city!"

But it makes no difference because he and his buddies like Bousquet will say that the figures are wrong, the books are cooked, and the proponents are lying. It is not about facts with these people.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Excellent. I was asking because I read where Epstein made the six story claim and it would be nice to be able to have something readily available to show him, or anyone, and say, "Here's what your six stories does do our city!"

Yeah, it would be good to have evidence on hand. The anti-development crew have already made up their mind, so its only really to show other people how stupid these sorts of statements are.

If you want 6 story buildings in the downtown then you are also anti-environment in my opinion. Its funny how these groups are constantly doing things that really don't support their other beliefs like "social justice" or "environmental protection". I wonder if it could be caluclated how they have contributed to urban sprawl.

Look at Purdy's as a great example of population density and green features in a building.

[Dartboy]

I have beeen discussing this with others. IF we are , in effect, just leasing space which is really all this is then why are are we paying 1/3 up front - well the feds have been asked to do so?

If I go lease space I get a few months for free over a set term. IF I lease a car I am not forced to lay out that much up front.

I am getting comfortable with the dollar cost but I really think or feel that the financing for the project for Ramia is contingent on him getting that money up front. BY that I mean he needs to finance the whole project and that $50 large up front allows him to finance the entire deal.

I have no issue with the man never had - frankly I know little about him. Just seems he is using tax dollars as leverage

[fenwick16]

I have beeen discussing this with others. IF we are , in effect, just leasing space which is really all this is then why are are we paying 1/3 up front - well the feds have been asked to do so?

The federal government isn't being asked to pay it up front, it is at the end of substantial completion, in other words 2015. This is what the province is hoping for - it hasn't been finalized.

A lease is what the province wants, not what Rank Inc. is demanding. According to Joe Ramia (stated before the HRM council), a lease arrangement was requested in the Request For Proposals. Here is a link explaining the rationale for requesting a lease - 34/61 to 39/61 of this pdf file - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Deloitte_Report.pdf.

[halifaxboyns]

Epstein, Devine and the rest of the STV and anti-development crowd made up their minds a long time ago. 6 Stories or nothing...viewplanes, or die. Personally - I would like to see a balance. My balance would be - in the viewplanes, smaller buildings. Outside the buildings; go up to the ramparts but when you exceed certain heights - you push away from the viewplane edges to avoid some of the 'walling in effect'. That would be my compromise. So typically; you'd probably have a two or 3 storey podium with commercial at grade - then up to 10 stories. Beyond that; I'd want to see the building pushed away from the edge of the viewplane in stages until you get to your maximum height. Reasonable approach and achieves balance.

Keith is correct; you will always maximize your tax base by getting the most intense tax return on more intense uses - that's why Purdy's and Maritime Centre pay a lot in taxes. So the way you prove the theory is to show the tax base you generate from those buildings - chances are you can use them as a base point for this project (to a degree).

As I posted earlier; this argument is going to keep happening with increasing frequency until it's settled one way or the other. Frankly; if people are for or against something - attend the public hearing and put your views out on the table (or write in). I'd like to see as part of the next Regional Plan a year long exercise that is a vision for the City; before the plan is actually done. That way; the city has more policy to support it's position and for god-sake can we please reword that clause in the MPS that says restore the view?! Because that's insane...

I read a few comments into the Herald about the centre and now people are bringing in the environmental argument about all the people coming to the centre from out of town - by air, being a huge environmental nightmare. My response is; yes, you are right. But they can come by car, they can come by train or by bus. But until we are using some other form of fuel - there isn't much of an alternative. Besides, conferences often offer green initiatives like carbon credits and things like that.

Personally - I'm hopeful that if this goes ahead; it would create such a demand on transportation that we'd see a lot of US flight frequency increasing, a few new european flights (Perhaps BA or Lufthansa) and increased freequency with AC and westjet - but mainly I'd like to see Via's Ocean go back to daily if not twice daily.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I have beeen discussing this with others. IF we are , in effect, just leasing space which is really all this is then why are are we paying 1/3 up front - well the feds have been asked to do so?

If I go lease space I get a few months for free over a set term. IF I lease a car I am not forced to lay out that much up front.

I am getting comfortable with the dollar cost but I really think or feel that the financing for the project for Ramia is contingent on him getting that money up front. BY that I mean he needs to finance the whole project and that $50 large up front allows him to finance the entire deal.

I have no issue with the man never had - frankly I know little about him. Just seems he is using tax dollars as leverage

I think the reason for the money being paid up front is moreso related to having a better amortization for the public funds. With a larger amount paid up front, the interest cost is less overall.

Its like people who don't put large enough down payments to ever even pay off their house.

It makes sense to always have as big of a down payment as possible, even if rates are low, because you end up paying less interest in time.

Leasing a car is usually not a good deal.

[halifaxboyns]

I had a very interesting experience the other day on facebook. I'm in a few of these 'fringe' groups pages on facebook and I posted a comment.
I ended up getting a few people emailing me - so I've had some rather interesting debates.

I won't reveal their names (and no one of them wasn't Bruce); but I think what's got some of them thinking was the question I possed, which is this: If the convention centre doesn't happen, then what other project could be done to create jobs? Regardless of whether there is funding from government - what could happen that would generate these construction jobs?

I love turning their arguments against them.
What surprised me though was based on one of the convention centre articles the CH posted; I made a comment that when HbD was adopted they didn't have to include the 'convention centre clause' in it. Apparently someone asked about it. I really wanted to post that I wrote that; but I decided it was best not too. :)

[someone123]

I think the reason for the money being paid up front is moreso related to having a better amortization for the public funds. With a larger amount paid up front, the interest cost is less overall.

Governments get better deals on financing than smaller companies.

[Empire]

Priceless....

Unconventional reason


Michael Stanbury’s Nov. 11 letter to the editor states, as a reason for not building the proposed convention centre, that "the carbon waste from the flights (jetliner loads flying in and out of Halifax, servicing events) would not only drop into Nova Scotia, but would be deposited along the entire path to wherever they came from."

Now, there! I bet Mr. Pacey and his anti-convention centre, coalition-view-crowd never thought of that one.


Robert A. Stapells, Halifax

[CorbeauNoir]

Well that settles it! Fetch the torches and pitchforks, time to smash down the airport!:haha:

[Dartboy]

I didnt see that comment but if that is the argument againstthe CC thenm build it to spite the idiot LOL.

Anyway we are making some progress.


http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/article/691938--no-tax-free-ride-for-centre-hrm

The property tax stays, the current convention centre is off the bargaining table, and there should be an option to buy after leasing

[fenwick16]

Thanks for the info Dartboy. Hopefully the province will accept the counteroffer. Although the old WTCC is off the table, I hope that the province or HRM will keep it since it could eventually be used for a larger Metro Centre II.

[halifaxboyns]

Thanks for the info Dartboy. Hopefully the province will accept the counteroffer. Although the old WTCC is off the table, I hope that the province or HRM will keep it since it could eventually be used for a larger Metro Centre II.

Certainly the staff presentation from HRM lent support to going back because right now HRM will either break even or come out losing. I support the idea of going back and looking at ownership. The government can always change the condo act as needed.

[fenwick16]

I have been wondering for the past several weeks how the federal government could guarantee their financial portion of the convention centre. Say they pledge $47 million to be paid in 2015 once the convention centre is substantially complete; there is the risk of having a change in government before 2015. I assume a legal contract between the federal government and provincial government would be sufficient. Alternately, the money could be committed now and put in trust until 2015, but the federal government would probably not want to tie up its money until then.

Can anyone speculate on a secure method for the province to get the allocated federal money in 2015?

[someone123]

It is my understanding that when it comes to standard contracts and civil matters the federal government can be held liable by the courts in the same way that an individual or corporation can be.

In other words, if the government today writes up a contract and a subsequent government breaches it, they can still be taken to court. If this weren't true then the government would have a hard time getting a good deal on contracts.

[fenwick16]

Yes, I agree. It will essentially be a purchase order for their portion of the convention centre. Once it is substantially complete, they will be legally liable for their portion.

[hoser111]

The feds can and have backed out of contractual commitments, although I would think it'd be highly unlikely on something like the CC..... but it costs them dearly when they do! Can you say EH-101 Helicopter???

[halifaxboyns]

The feds can and have backed out of contractual commitments, although I would think it'd be highly unlikely on something like the CC..... but it costs them dearly when they do! Can you say EH-101 Helicopter???

If I remember correctly for the EH-101's; the RFP that was done for the project had an out clause - hence the penalty we still incurred when the liberals axed the deal.

With the money that was dedicated for this project, there are usually contractual committments, plus didn't NFLD sue the government (Harper's government) over committments for offshore oil for NFLD? I think that's what someone123 maybe thinking of? Or something along that line?

[fenwick16]

It seems as though the allnovascotia.com has now started publishing lopsidedly negative opinions regarding the convention centre. Two days ago it was the likes of John Wesley Chisholm and James Drage. Tonight they published an article titled "Op-Ed: Building on the Convention Centre" which criticises its design as going against HRM by Design and refers to the towers as mediocre 70's style buildings that are wrong for that site. Supposedly it will be competing with Las Vegas for conventions.

Once again, I feel that I am being manipulated. Did allnovascotia.com publish an old article or did the author simply decide not to note the change in design? Based on the article tonight, there appears to be nothing good about the current design. I guess the 22 councilors who voted in favour were just uninformed regarding its poor design (luckily we have Frank Palermo to enlighten us :yuck:).

Can't allnovascotia.com find anyone to provide a positive article regarding the convention centre? Personally, I am ready to cancel my subscription if they can't find anyone in favour of it. I know there were 2000 people who signed a petition in favour of it and several in the business community who are in favour - where are their opinions? I would like to accept the optimism expressed by Joe Ramia instead of a tired old "we are competing with Las Vegas" attitude put forth by Frank Palermo.

[halifaxboyns]

I wouldn't put too much 'salt' into it. A good newspaper puts views from both sides in; I give the CH reasonable marks for trying to be fair to both sides.

The fact is they will continue to argue this right into court and right down to the wire. What we (as a group) need to do is make sure that we are constantly posted factual truth; rebutting their arguments and where we can - constantly reminding the clear majority (emphasis on clear majority) on the fact this is a good project.

[DigitalNinja]

I don't really understand all nova scotia... Is it supposed to be something aimed more towards the business crowd?
I love the new design from what I see, I think it is great, there could be a few improvements but it is like that with any development.

[fenwick16]

I wouldn't put too much 'salt' into it. A good newspaper puts views from both sides in; I give the CH reasonable marks for trying to be fair to both sides.

The fact is they will continue to argue this right into court and right down to the wire. What we (as a group) need to do is make sure that we are constantly posted factual truth; rebutting their arguments and where we can - constantly reminding the clear majority (emphasis on clear majority) on the fact this is a good project.

Over the next few days, if the allnovascotia.com starts to publish articles from the people in favour then they will show that they are a good media source. Otherwise they will start morphing into another version of "The Coast".

[someone123]

Frank Palermo is a planning prof at Dal and has been involved in some HRM planning. I don't think his op-ed piece was overly lopsided, although it's possible that he was a little hung up on the old renderings of the building. Even the new design could be improved substantially.

I disagree about towers being back for that site. In fact, I prefer seeing more significant buildings in that area. I think building height limits on the upper blocks are part of the reason why they are so underdeveloped. I also think that it's much more visually appealing to have more consistent height moving up the hill rather than a "tabletop" type of arrangement. There are towers near the hill in the Spring Garden Road area and they don't hurt the view - they're a part of the city. If you want an unobstructed ocean view from a hill, go to any one of the thousands of hills along the coast of NS that do not have cities by them. If you choose to stand on the only one that has a city by it, stop complaining.

[beyeas]

I think it is clear that he was commenting on the old design, at which point the odd thing is that ANS ran it without adding that comment.

I thought his article was only slightly lopsided. The thing that I didn't like was that he provided a numbered list of the negatives, but then only gave a sinple paragraph on the positives (thereby clearly weighting it to the negative).

Alot of his points in the body of the text though are fair, and are not all that different than what many people on here have said. The old design WAS a recycled '80s building, and it DID have a poor relationship to the street, and there HASN'T been enough public consultation.

Having said that, I think that much has changed since the time when I would assume he wrote that and now. Now the design has already greatly improved, the towers are better, the street-side is better (except for Sackville-Argyle corner), and they have increased communication and allowed for a period of public input (much of what Frank was lobbying for).

There is no question that on the whole the article was slanted to the negative, but it wasn't horribly so and many comments were fair. I have seen some positive op-ed pieces as well from ANS in the last weeks as well, but I agree that all the media outlets need to make sure they continue to give balanced views.

[Dartboy]

It seems as though the allnovascotia.com has now started publishing lopsidedly negative opinions regarding the convention centre. Two days ago it was the likes of John Wesley Chisholm and James Drage. Tonight they published an article titled "Op-Ed: Building on the Convention Centre" which criticises its design as going against HRM by Design and refers to the towers as mediocre 70's style buildings that are wrong for that site. Supposedly it will be competing with Las Vegas for conventions.

Once again, I feel that I am being manipulated. Did allnovascotia.com publish an old article or did the author simply decide not to note the change in design? Based on the article tonight, there appears to be nothing good about the current design. I guess the 22 councilors who voted in favour were just uninformed regarding its poor design (luckily we have Frank Palermo to enlighten us :yuck:).

Can't allnovascotia.com find anyone to provide a positive article regarding the convention centre? Personally, I am ready to cancel my subscription if they can't find anyone in favour of it. I know there were 2000 people who signed a petition in favour of it and several in the business community who are in favour - where are their opinions? I would like to accept the optimism expressed by Joe Ramia instead of a tired old "we are competing with Las Vegas" attitude put forth by Frank Palermo.

Fen - actually the OP ed I read on Monday Morning had two letters to ANS and the first one was PRO cc and the second was anti ( wesley now that I checked). I do not remember the others although I have the Wesley and Devanne mental filters on. Todays was a piece well balanced from the editor. I think ANS has presented both sides equally. I am slowly warming up to CC but I wantto see clear metrics on the business case and I want those to be measured going forward. Right now if I was chair of the board of some company and that was put in front of me I still would not be for the project.

[halifaxboyns]

People are always going to have different views; that is just a fact of life. I agree, I think Frank was looking at the old drawings and I suspect he may have submitted the article some time ago and they only just got around to publishing it (I could be wrong).

I agree with someone123 to a point. I like to be a person of balance and I think we have to go back to what the original intent of the viewplanes were. It was to pretect designated views from specified points along the roadway and cap the height at the ramparts. It wasn't about protecting the entire view - I suspect the council of the day realized that by doing that, they would've capped development rights as far as the eye could see, but not in Dartmouth. So technically they could've done something that would've given Dartmouth an advantage and then their downtown would've gone taller despite Halifax's. (I'm guessing, but it seems logical)

The heritage trust did manage to get added to the rules 'band a' which is all the buildings along the hill on Brunswick Street - but for the life of me I can't understand how that policy to 'restore or reclaim the view' got adopted and it would be my goal to have it removed or at least reworded to make more sense. I believe that if you aren't inside the viewplane, you should be able to build up to the ramparts, but that you also have a responsibility in designing your building so that you don't wall the view in. So that doesn't mean you build right to the edge of the viewplane. So I think there should be more design related policies for development agreements that gives staff the ability to say to applicants you are right at the viewplane edge, push it back. So for example, perhaps once you reach say 10 stories - you push back from the viewplane edge 2m. Then at 15 stories, another 2m and if you get up to 20 stories, another 2m. This can reduce the walling effect and actually create an interesting building design because you'd have some facade articulation.

It's this issue I think that the STV and the HT trust see as a big problem and honestly I can understand that. One of the towers is right up against the viewplane (I may be wrong but both might be). So a response to the design might be to push in some of the upper floors. The problem is that they won't accept that and try to crush the project.

[someone123]

It's this issue I think that the STV and the HT trust see as a big problem and honestly I can understand that. One of the towers is right up against the viewplane (I may be wrong but both might be). So a response to the design might be to push in some of the upper floors. The problem is that they won't accept that and try to crush the project.

It seems unfair to first lobby for bylaws and then go after developers who don't go above (or, uhh.. beneath) and beyond them. It's also not a winning tactic when it comes to the URB.

I think the building impact on the view is mostly a design issue, not a height issue, especially given the viewplanes that are in place. The Martello is relatively tall but looks good from the Citadel because it has windows on all sides and an interesting shape. The Metro Centre looks bad because it is a giant chunk of concrete, even though it's only maybe 1/3 as tall.

[sdm]

People are always going to have different views; that is just a fact of life. I agree, I think Frank was looking at the old drawings and I suspect he may have submitted the article some time ago and they only just got around to publishing it (I could be wrong).

I agree with someone123 to a point. I like to be a person of balance and I think we have to go back to what the original intent of the viewplanes were. It was to pretect designated views from specified points along the roadway and cap the height at the ramparts. It wasn't about protecting the entire view - I suspect the council of the day realized that by doing that, they would've capped development rights as far as the eye could see, but not in Dartmouth. So technically they could've done something that would've given Dartmouth an advantage and then their downtown would've gone taller despite Halifax's. (I'm guessing, but it seems logical)

The heritage trust did manage to get added to the rules 'band a' which is all the buildings along the hill on Brunswick Street - but for the life of me I can't understand how that policy to 'restore or reclaim the view' got adopted and it would be my goal to have it removed or at least reworded to make more sense. I believe that if you aren't inside the viewplane, you should be able to build up to the ramparts, but that you also have a responsibility in designing your building so that you don't wall the view in. So that doesn't mean you build right to the edge of the viewplane. So I think there should be more design related policies for development agreements that gives staff the ability to say to applicants you are right at the viewplane edge, push it back. So for example, perhaps once you reach say 10 stories - you push back from the viewplane edge 2m. Then at 15 stories, another 2m and if you get up to 20 stories, another 2m. This can reduce the walling effect and actually create an interesting building design because you'd have some facade articulation.

It's this issue I think that the STV and the HT trust see as a big problem and honestly I can understand that. One of the towers is right up against the viewplane (I may be wrong but both might be). So a response to the design might be to push in some of the upper floors. The problem is that they won't accept that and try to crush the project.

I have no problem with the height, but the Hotel is where i think the biggest problem for most is.

Because of how it more or less runs the length of the block it has substainal mass and scale. It has no features that lesson the block feel.

Furthermore, because the Hotel is turn in this direction it should be noted that the section of argyle street will a substainal reduction in afternoon sun.

There should be more effort put into the design of the hotel.

[fenwick16]

I have no problem with the height, but the Hotel is where i think the biggest problem for most is.

Because of how it more less runs the length of the block it has substainal mass and scale. It has no features that lesson the block feel.

Furthermore, because the Hotel is turn in this direction it should be noted that the section of argyle street will never experience afternoon sun.

There should be more effort put into the design of the hotel.

It would be interesting to see a shadow study for the hotel. There are companies that can generate an animation showing the shadow movement throughout the year. The direction of the shadow will change throughout the year because the angle of the sun will vary with the seasons. So, although I get your point, there won't be one area on Argyle Street that will be blocked in the afternoon throughout the year. The area being blocked will keep moving a bit each day. (The only place where a tower would block the same spot each afternoon all year long would be at the equator).

PS: The shadow will have a sweeping effect along Argyle Street as shown in the following shadow study done for the Roy tower proposal - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01172ShadowStudy.html .

[sdm]

It would be interesting to see a shadow study for the hotel. There are companies that can generate an animation showing the shadow movement throughout the year. The direction of the shadow will change throughout the year because the angle of the sun will vary with the seasons. So, although I get your point, there won't be one area on Argyle Street that will be blocked in the afternoon throughout the year. The area being blocked will keep moving a bit each day. (The only place where a tower would block the same spot each afternoon all year long would be at the equator)

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

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