HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


    Sutton Place Nova Centre in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1781  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2010, 10:26 AM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Convention centre: Can we all just get a grip?

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








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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He says governments should have set out a budget and told the developers to work with that figure, not the other way around. The process so far has only served to confuse the debate, and that’s partly why it has turned so nasty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1782  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2010, 12:59 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
I also wonder why a long term capital lease was chosen over the Traditional Design Build. I would understand the logic if the depreciated asset value of the convention centre was deducted from the initial convention centre cost in order to reduce the lease payments but that doesn't appear to be the case. Also, the 6.9% interest rate payments for 25 years in addition to $19 million interim financing to delay payments until 2014 doesn't sound reasonable for NS and HRM taxpayers (I assume this is being done just so that the debt won't be on the provincial books - will it be on Rank Inc.'s books - is this why the NDP is willing to accept a 6.9% interest rate when they can get 25 year bonds at about 4.7% interest?). The NDP will hopefully clarify why they chose this financing deal.

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

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

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

• Province is being asked to contribute to the Convention Center only; other parts of the development are 100% funded by the Developer
I am 100% in favour of a new convention centre but I just hope that the financial terms can be improved. At $10.2 million annual amortization payments for 25 years and $2.9 million annual maintenance payments, I just don't think that it will be a money making proposition.

Last edited by fenwick16; Nov 1, 2010 at 9:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1783  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2010, 7:54 PM
Buckey Buckey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 76
Reasonable expectation

Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I also wonder why a long term capital lease was chosen over the Traditional Design Build. I would understand the logic if the depreciated asset value of the convention centre was deducted from the initial convention centre cost in order to reduce the lease payments but that doesn't appear to be the case. Also, the 6.9% interest rate payments with $19 million interim financing until 2014 doesn't sound reasonable for NS and HRM taxpayers (I assume this is being done just so that the debt won't be on the provincial books - will it be on Rank Inc.'s books - is this why the NDP is willing to accept a 6.9% interest rate?). The NDP will hopefully clarify why they chose this financing deal.
The quote below is from the WTCC-II Bid Summary. (sources: https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf )

Maybe the province/HRM should consider owning the entire complex. They could lease out the hotel and recover that cost. The office portion could be used for HRM and provincial purposes and any space not needed could be leased to private interests.
I thinks thats all most folks want - some clearer explanations
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1784  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2010, 8:45 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Someone posting to Dan Leger's opinion piece (for which my comment created pretty daggerous remarks) said it best: It's a matter of trust. That person pointed out past planning blunders as to why urban planners aren't trusted and while I take that a little personally (as a planner); I have to believe we've evolved to a point where we recognize our mistakes of the past. Many of the projects that person points out were done a long time ago, like Maritime Centre of the Harbourfront Drive (and the Cogswell Interchange).

I think we've grown up simply distrusting politicans to the point where it wouldn't matter if a CGA came forward and said the math made sense (or not) - we simply wouldn't trust it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1785  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2010, 9:00 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Someone posting to Dan Leger's opinion piece (for which my comment created pretty daggerous remarks) said it best: It's a matter of trust. That person pointed out past planning blunders as to why urban planners aren't trusted and while I take that a little personally (as a planner); I have to believe we've evolved to a point where we recognize our mistakes of the past. Many of the projects that person points out were done a long time ago, like Maritime Centre of the Harbourfront Drive (and the Cogswell Interchange).

I think we've grown up simply distrusting politicans to the point where it wouldn't matter if a CGA came forward and said the math made sense (or not) - we simply wouldn't trust it.
I think this is a very common but ignorant perspective. This often comes from people who don't bother to look at details. As a result, it feels like some things randomly work out, others don't, and that it is because of "good" or "bad" ("untrustworthy") politicians. In the worst case these people just vote for whoever seems the most "trustworthy" ("George Bush is a guy I'd like to have a beer with!") and continue to create random results.

That is an extremely lazy form of civic involvement. It totally misses the point of why politicians do what they do and what makes projects successful or unsuccessful. Most people have the capacity and the resources available to learn about these projects so that they can know something about issues like financing or urban design, if they are interested in those things. If they aren't, they shouldn't be commenting on those issues. This is all particularly easy at the municipal level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1786  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2010, 1:17 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
CAUTION: The following post may cause drowsiness.

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

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

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

These imposed constraints focus attention to the operation of the convention center space which is consequently limited to two specific delivery options under private ownership. These are the DBFM and DBFOM models detailed in Figure 12.
The WTCC website (https://conventioncentreinfo.com/about/project-funding/) clearly states that the rationale quoted above was used to determine the funding of the Convention Centre:
Quote:
Project Funding

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

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

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

The public sector would be responsible for operating the facility itself. This means activities related to events such as sales and marketing, catering and general site operations would be managed by a government agency like Trade Centre Limited.
PS: Based on what I read in the Deloitte report above, the main reason of having Rank Inc. finance the convention centre privately (through a 3rd party) is because 1) they own the land and 2) to mitigate the risk of cost over-runs. Maybe they should go back to the drawing board and design a simpler building at lower cost that shouldn't go over budget and that can be financed at the lowest interest rate possible through the 3 levels of government. I would agree with the HRM council if they decide to reject the current financial terms. On the other hand, if it can be financed at much lower interest rates then it would appear to be a suitable design.

Last edited by fenwick16; Nov 11, 2010 at 11:20 PM. Reason: Shortened my post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1787  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 9:39 AM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 482
Developer offered to put centre in public hands

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








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

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

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

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

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

The federal government will be asked to pay about $47 million toward the convention centre in a lump sum when the project would be mostly finished, likely in 2014. Officials said at a briefing last month that the province and Halifax Regional Municipality would cover the rest of the cost in a 25-year capital lease. The annual lease payment would be $10.2 million, plus another $2.9 million in annual maintenance and upgrading costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"They work better without windows," Fowler said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is slated to occupy two city blocks and be completed by 2015.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1788  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 10:19 AM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,210
Very exciting new renders!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1789  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 10:44 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Ramia said he is looking at the idea of creating a bond to finance the convention centre.

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

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

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

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

This view below looks much better. It is great to see them getting away from the fake historical type facade.
NICE - it has shred its ugly duckling exterior

Referring to the view below, I like how they have emphasized the arches which support the Grafton Street pedway and Ballroom ceiling. This is an architectural feature that people might like to see (I would).

Last edited by fenwick16; Nov 4, 2010 at 2:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1790  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 10:48 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
North of Gilead
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of Gilead
Posts: 11,062
Looks fabulous.
__________________
ELBOWS UP CANADA, ELBOWS UP UKRAINE, ELBOWS UP GREENLAND
CANADA, EUROPE, NZ, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, MEXICO STRONG

US REPUBLICANS/MAGA/ICE NOT WELCOME HERE, STAY OUT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1791  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 11:16 AM
beyeas beyeas is offline
Fizzix geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South End, Hali
Posts: 1,318
Nice.

A few things that catch my eye...

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

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

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

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

Based on all this I would say that, if the province gets its act together, there is still a chance that this may play out the way it should have all along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1792  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 11:20 AM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 41,034
This will be a fantastic project!

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

I guess since the galleria may contain a rink, that they didn't need to build the four-ice complex on Hammonds Plains Road after all.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1793  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 12:00 PM
hoser111's Avatar
hoser111 hoser111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 353
" reminiscent of sails and a tower that looks like a lighthouse at night."

I'll reserve judgement until I see better drawings, but there's that word again! Shoot me now!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1794  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 12:34 PM
Dartboy Dartboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20
Great step

This is a great step in repairing the process. The process was getting worse than the CWG. The skeptical public just wants some more info. Dialogue and willingness to make it happen is what we need. More transparency on the financials hopefully comes next week.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1795  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 1:32 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 41,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoser111 View Post
" reminiscent of sails and a tower that looks like a lighthouse at night."

I'll reserve judgement until I see better drawings, but there's that word again! Shoot me now!
Hey, we've got a lighthouse at Casino NB in Moncton too.

Of course, with us it's worse...........the casino is about 5 km inland from the Petitcodiac, which is in turn about 50 km upriver from Shepody Bay.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1796  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 2:03 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
I believe that they are thinking in terms of a very modern lighthouse like in the image below. However, if it adds extra height then the Save the View group will be up in arms (again).

(source: Chronicle Herald story originally posted above by planarchy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1797  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 3:14 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
North of Gilead
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of Gilead
Posts: 11,062
Is there a 'kill the view' lobby group in Halifax?
__________________
ELBOWS UP CANADA, ELBOWS UP UKRAINE, ELBOWS UP GREENLAND
CANADA, EUROPE, NZ, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, MEXICO STRONG

US REPUBLICANS/MAGA/ICE NOT WELCOME HERE, STAY OUT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1798  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 6:44 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 5,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Is there a 'kill the view' lobby group in Halifax?
Sign me up.

Those new renderings look fantastic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1799  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 6:46 PM
haligonia's Avatar
haligonia haligonia is offline
Urban Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Hey, we've got a lighthouse at Casino NB in Moncton too.

Of course, with us it's worse...........the casino is about 5 km inland from the Petitcodiac, which is in turn about 50 km upriver from Shepody Bay.
That casino is one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1800  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 7:06 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 41,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by haligonia View Post
That casino is one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen.
Yes, but it certainly catches your attention from the highway, doesn't it!

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

The inside of the hotel is OK.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.