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

[fenwick16]

From what I remember, there was a request for proposals and the Rank proposal was the one selected from several. When the renderings were posted the reaction on this form was almost overwhelmingly in favour. Also the results of the two petitions show that people want this proposal. Although the numbers keep changing, at this point (Saturday, March 20, 7:10 PM Atlantic Time) the numbers are 823 for and 545 against. This is a clear indicator that this is a good proposal and location.

FOR: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/supp...tion-centre-construction/signatures.html
AGAINST: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ourview&1[/QUOTE]

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

From what I remember, there was a request for proposals and the Rank proposal was the one selected from several. When the renderings were posted the reaction on this form was almost overwhelmingly in favour. Also the results of the two petitions show that people want this proposal. Although the numbers keep changing, at this point (Saturday, March 20, 7:10 PM Atlantic Time) the numbers are 823 for and 545 against. This is a clear indicator that this is a good proposal and location.

FOR: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/supp...tion-centre-construction/signatures.html
AGAINST: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ourview&1

Petitions are far from clear indicators. Not trying to sound too harsh, but they are generally a completely meaningless form of civic action and produce no results.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Petitions are far from clear indicators. Not trying to sound too harsh, but they are generally a completely meaningless form of civic action and produce no results.

I agree completely the Save our View petition is a completely meaningless form of civic action.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

From what I remember, there was a request for proposals and the Rank proposal was the one selected from several. When the renderings were posted the reaction on this form was almost overwhelmingly in favour. Also the results of the two petitions show that people want this proposal. Although the numbers keep changing, at this point (Saturday, March 20, 7:10 PM Atlantic Time) the numbers are 823 for and 545 against. This is a clear indicator that this is a good proposal and location.

FOR: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/supp...tion-centre-construction/signatures.html
AGAINST: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ourview&1

[/QUOTE]

I've signed the pro-petition (the first one).

[mcmcclassic]

Me too, I really hope that a decision is made on this project though. I find a lot of projects around here get put off for such long time that they just get forgotten about and abandoned.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Petitions are far from clear indicators. Not trying to sound too harsh, but they are generally a completely meaningless form of civic action and produce no results.

Absolutely. I always get a kick seeing MPs in the House of Commons standing to present a petition. I'm pretty sure later in the day the clerk just shreds them all anyway

[fenwick16]

The numbers are currently 828 FOR and 546 AGAINST. Watching the results is almost as much fun as watching election results, or watching the Blue Jays beat the Yankees. (Especially since the Heritage people almost always seem to win in Halifax).

FOR: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/supp...tion-centre-construction/signatures.html
AGAINST: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ourview&1[/QUOTE]

[spaustin]

A letter in today's Herald from Bernie Smith. Pretty reasonable in terms of his reservations about the current proposal.


Centre of contention

Sun. Mar 21 - 4:53 AM
I have read Ralph Surette’s column for years, and I generally agree with him; this time I don’t ("The convention centre illusion: We need to talk," March 13 column). First, his conclusions appear to be largely based on the U.S. experience. The U.S. has generally suffered more as a result of the (hopefully) now receding economic meltdown than has Canada. To apply U.S. experience to a Canadian situation without careful provisions is wrong. To apply it to Halifax, which has a good convention business that is progressively being lost because of the size of our existing 30-year-old facility, would be doubly wrong. There is certainly a question of how large the proposed centre should be, but the present centre cannot accommodate its natural market. We knew that 12 years ago. Goodness knows how much damage a steady loss of convention business has inflicted on our economy over the past dozen years.

Frankly, I had hoped the new convention centre would provide the catalyst for redevelopment of the Cogswell interchange, and I also am not an advocate of high buildings in that area of Halifax’s downtown. I am prepared to reconcile to some height, presumably to ensure the development’s viability, in order to avoid the horrible prospect of a huge vacant moonscape from Argyle almost to the Citadel. Since this development is outside the legislated viewplanes from Citadel Hill, Ralph is wrong to claim it "will block part of the viewplanes from Citadel Hill." If we were proposing to protect the whole 360° view, then we would not have established viewplanes in the past. Argue that height has to be carefully examined, and that it is frequently undesirable in our downtown, and he will have me onside. This particular project was specifically sanctioned and approved by city council outside the guidelines of HRM by Design, presumably to provide for its viability. HRM by Design would give it nine floors. Discussing that might be helpful. Mis-stating the situation does not add to a useful debate.


Bernard Smith, manager, Spring Garden Area Business Association

[someone123]

Originally Posted by spaustin

To apply U.S. experience to a Canadian situation without careful provisions is wrong. To apply it to Halifax, which has a good convention business that is progressively being lost because of the size of our existing 30-year-old facility, would be doubly wrong. There is certainly a question of how large the proposed centre should be, but the present centre cannot accommodate its natural market.

This is a good point. A lot of the statistics about declining conference attendance across North America and so on is not directly relevant to this development. The crucial piece of information is whether or not this facility can justify the cost of its construction by attracting conferences that would not have otherwise come to the city.

Partly this depends on the overall global economy, but it has way more to do with the city itself. How many conferences currently come? How desirable is the city? How big is it? Halifax barely hosts anything when in reality it could be a solid second-tier conference city because it's attractive, has a major airport, is a regional centre, and has lots of local universities. If this proposal were for an LA-style million square foot building I'd consider it unlikely to justify its expense, but the scale of building proposed seems roughly at the level where it's tailored to handle pent up demand and lost opportunities. This is totally different from "build it and they will come" type projects.

It's really too bad because I think there's a very negative Maritime attitude that expense is always best avoided and it's better to do without. In reality there are big hidden costs to operating with infrastructure deficits or stifling progress. You never see the people or businesses who would have come to your city, and in Halifax's case I think there are a lot of those.

I agree about the Cogswell interchange and I have complained before about closed HRM processes, but given the advanced stage of this project I think it would be better to work productively on improving the existing proposal rather than resort to "Save the View" style scuttling attempts.

[halifaxboyns]

Halifax has a lot going for it in terms of being able to attract conferences, I agree with that and I do see this project as putting it on the same level as Calgary or Toronto for space and Tier 2 conferences.

Where I think Calgary is different is the types of conferences attracted. Most come here due in part to the oil industry and the various spin off industries; that's the pre-dominant type of conference here in Calgary - where as Halifax could get really anything.

Halifax's location makes it very well positioned for conferences from Europe or the US. The transportation links (rail, air) are pretty good and the airport seems to be slowly adding new destinations (which will continue so long as Halifax keeps growing).

The article posted was very well balanced - he points out I think the critical flaw in the 'save the view' argument; which is they want the 360 degree view saved; which is not what the viewplane rules were intended to do. They were intended to protect specific views and then limit those outside of a viewplane to the rampart heights (if I'm wrong about the last part; please tell me - that's how I understood it).

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The article posted was very well balanced - he points out I think the critical flaw in the 'save the view' argument; which is they want the 360 degree view saved; which is not what the viewplane rules were intended to do. They were intended to protect specific views and then limit those outside of a viewplane to the rampart heights (if I'm wrong about the last part; please tell me - that's how I understood it).

This is true except the Heritage Trust people have been effective in opposing new buildings throughout the downtown even where viewplanes bylaws did not exist. The viewplanes bylaws are now secondary in importance to HRMbyDesign which has imposed far more restrictive height controls than what the viewplanes bylaws previously allowed. So now and in the future, height is governed by the HRMbyDesign resulting design manual ( http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf ). Viewplanes bylaws are a thing of the past, Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law issued in 2009 is now the law (resulting from HRMbyDesign).

The Heritage Trust people got most of what they wanted regarding height control in the new bylaws but, as always, are unwilling to compromise and allow the convention centre which was not in a viewplane previously and is allowed according to the new Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law. I would really like to see Mayor Kelly tell these people to take a long hike on a short pier.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

This is true except the Heritage Trust people have been effective in opposing new buildings throughout the downtown even where viewplanes bylaws did not exist. The viewplanes bylaws are now secondary in importance to HRMbyDesign which has imposed far more restrictive height controls than what the viewplanes bylaws previously allowed. So now and in the future, height is governed by the HRMbyDesign resulting design manual ( http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf ). Viewplanes bylaws are a thing of the past, Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law issued in 2009 is now the law (resulting from HRMbyDesign).

The Heritage Trust people got most of what they wanted regarding height control in the new bylaws but, as always, are unwilling to compromise and allow the convention centre which was not in a viewplane previously and is allowed according to the new Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law. I would really like to see Mayor Kelly tell these people to take a long hike on a short pier.

Weren't the viewplanes encorporated into HbD? That's what I thought; because they weren't abolished; just moved into this new Bylaw.

I agree with you that groups that continually want more and more and more; sometimes need to be told. My only suggestion for Mayor Kelly would be to wait and do it either when he knows he's not running again; or when his last term will be.

But if he were to do that; it would be a very interesting thing to watch. I got to watch the longest standing Alderman in Calgary take several sizeable chunks out of a bunch of NIMBY's the other day at City Council here; it was very interesting.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Weren't the viewplanes encorporated into HbD? That's what I thought; because they weren't abolished; just moved into this new Bylaw.

This was what I thought also. However, I was very surprised when I saw the new bylaws; the only place that rampart maximum height now exists is in the Scotia Square/Cogswell Interchange and 1801 Hollis/TD Bank blocks (and this is post bonus height). You might be surprised by the new height limits: pages 55 and 56 of 141 (pdf files pages, not the document page numbers). In spite of all the talk about having maximum density downtown, they instead decided to go with a more livable city (i.e. lower height). This sounds good, but I wonder if there will be sufficient profit margins to entice developers to build downtown with these height limits. Only time will tell.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

This was what I thought also. However, I was very surprised when I saw the new bylaws; the only place that rampart maximum height now exists is in the Scotia Square/Cogswell Interchange and 1801 Hollis/TD Bank blocks (and this is post bonus height). You might be surprised by the new height limits: pages 55 and 56 of 141 (pdf files pages, not the document page numbers). In spite of all the talk about having maximum density downtown, they instead decided to go with a more livable city (i.e. lower height). This sounds good, but I wonder if there will be sufficient profit margins to entice developers to build downtown with these height limits. Only time will tell.

I will have to take a look.
The great thing about a land use bylaw is that it's a living and breathing thing - it constantly evolves. So while HbD may have a vision for now; if something changes then the document can evolve.

For example; friends of my who do economic forcasts see Halifax being a place for a lot of growth if oil goes back up over $100/barrel because of the industries that fix the rigs, etc. Plus considering that HRM has the major transportation links, I think that some of the major oil firms would rather invest in offices in Halifax, versus SJ's. If his analysis holds even slightly correct, population and economic growth would go up and probably lend to a review of HbD if there was a need for bigger offices.

Just guessing though...

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

This was what I thought also. However, I was very surprised when I saw the new bylaws; the only place that rampart maximum height now exists is in the Scotia Square/Cogswell Interchange and 1801 Hollis/TD Bank blocks (and this is post bonus height). You might be surprised by the new height limits: pages 55 and 56 of 141 (pdf files pages, not the document page numbers). In spite of all the talk about having maximum density downtown, they instead decided to go with a more livable city (i.e. lower height). This sounds good, but I wonder if there will be sufficient profit margins to entice developers to build downtown with these height limits. Only time will tell.

The rampart height limit is unclear. No one knows for sure where it is measured from. The theory is that it is the centre of parade square. I have not seen where this viewplane could affect. HxD should have had sketches done in the vertical plane showing the graduated height limit for this extra viewplane. If one were to project a line from the centre of parade square then graze the citadel rampart in the direction of Purdy's Wharf and over Purdy's I would be willing to bet the height at Purdy's would be 35 storeys or more and 25 storeys at Scotia Sq. It is amazing that no one has defined this. I have an idea that HT knows it is higher than 20 storeys in the Cogswell area. HxD should have defined it and based the height limit in the Cogswell area on that result. Just one of the many flaws in the HxD doc.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

The rampart height limit is unclear. No one knows for sure where it is measured from. The theory is that it is the centre of parade square. I have not seen where this viewplane could affect. HxD should have had sketches done in the vertical plane showing the graduated height limit for this extra viewplane. If one were to project a line from the centre of parade square then graze the citadel rampart in the direction of Purdy's Wharf and over Purdy's I would be willing to bet the height at Purdy's would be 35 storeys or more and 25 storeys at Scotia Sq. It is amazing that no one has defined this. I have an idea that HT knows it is higher than 20 storeys in the Cogswell area. HxD should have defined it and based the height limit in the Cogswell area on that result. Just one of the many flaws in the HxD doc.

That's a very good point; I honestly don't remember what the rule was. This is where a diagram in HbD would've been great, but often lawyers don't like that because if it's challenged in court they could take a very literal (and not flexible) interpretation of it.

[halifaxboyns]

On a seperate thought; I just came back from the Calgary Telus Convention Centre (I had some meetings there) and I'm going to try to post some pictures to give you guys a look at what Calgary has. The convention centre is apparently 2 parts, the main complex on the north side of 8th Ave SE and the south side (which is part of the Glenbow Museum complex) but I couldn't believe how many really small conference spaces there were! It's a very adaptive space, but there were lots of Oil and Gas presentations going on today!

[fenwick16]

This story was in metronews.ca ( http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/ar...on-province-to-back-downtown-development ). I have to believe that Mayor Kelly is pushing this as stated. Maybe be has decided to become tough with the Heritage groups who keep delaying progress and jobs in the HRM. Since this is already in the Halifax Land Use Manual, I assume that it will not have to be approved by the HRM council. However, the HRM portion of funding would likely have to be approved. It would be good to know which councillors support it.

PAUL MCLEOD
METRO HALIFAX
March 23, 2010 1:29 a.m.

Though often one to mince words, Mayor Peter Kelly isn’t holding back on pressuring the province to help build a new convention centre in Halifax.

Kelly said yesterday it would make no sense to let the centre die for the sake of what he estimates to be $30 million to $50 million.

“This is one that’s a no-brainer,” Kelly said. “We need to not lose focus and make sure the place gets built.”

The province is still deliberating on whether to support the 1.4-million-square-foot facility estimated to cost between $300 million and $350 million.

But Kelly said that figure includes the private company costs of an 18-floor hotel, 14 floors of class A office space, a floor of retail stores and an event plaza. He said the government tab for two floors of convention centre space would be in the $100-million to $130-million range.

Split evenly between the three levels of government, he said the bill would come to $30 million to $50 million each. Nothing to sneeze at, but Kelly said it makes financial sense when you look at increased convention revenue and spinoffs like heightened property value.

“It’s a lot of money to lose as well, if it’s not built,” he said.

“It’s extremely important. We have to make sure we keep our eye on the ball for the future.”

The province will decide April 19 whether to move ahead with the Argyle Street development.

One question mark that remains is the federal stake. Nova Scotia Infrastructure Renewal Minister Bill Estabrooks said last week there has been no federal commitment of cash.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency spokesman David Harrigan said yesterday his agency wouldn’t be involved.

“Just the sheer size of the project would mean it wouldn’t be something we’d be getting involved in,” he said. “It’s just well beyond our programming.”

As a public-private partnership, the centre would likely qualify for funding from Infrastructure Canada, but whether it would be enough to foot one-third of the bill isn’t known.

[Empire]

If the 14 fl. office building on the old Midtown site was turned 90 deg. then you would see more of George's Island from the entrance to the citadel. This was the orientation for the midtown hotel and something that really should be considered.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

If the 14 fl. office building on the old Midtown site was turned 90 deg. then you would see more of George's Island from the entrance to the citadel. This was the orientation for the midtown hotel and something that really should be considered.

Part of the issue is that the block isn't very wide, and this development would be clearly worse if it were to combine the two blocks. It is true that the midtown was narrower but there was always the possibility of another wider tower on the lot to the south.

I personally don't think that this view from the Citadel is terribly important; there's more of a view to the south and, historically speaking, the Citadel was designed to deal with land attacks, not attacks from the harbour.