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

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Sorry... I just can't stand being trolled by the STV/HT crowd who will stop at nothing to derail this project.

I can already hear these folks saying "the war has just begun" when this gets approved.

Sdm doesn't think a venue such as a trade/convention centre will work... but I think its a good model. Any type of conference could be held here cheaper and in closer proximity than other events.

The BC examples of trade centres aren't even close to Chicago, Toronto, NYC, etc. Its a joke to me that a legit Halifax venue would fail. We do have a bit of "vegas" cache and are close to europe for EU business matching.

Lets be real... the "Canada Games Centre" is already pulling in events as a recreation venue... I can't see us doing too bad for legit events.

Basing any kind of "event promotion" on recessionary numbers isn't correct.

Lets not hate on ourselves, there are pretty decent numbers for a few sectors in Halifax... why not have world class events regarding them?

Your statement about what i said is incorrect. I think a new trade could work, but not this one. I don't agree with it because of a number of factors, being mostly its location, and the fact that it is a subsidized private development.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Although I understand what you are saying, just imagine being a politician in the Halifax area and having to deal with organizations like the CBC and Chronicle Herald which continues to interview the Save the View group. The only reason why this group has any standing in the community is because of a disproportionate amount of media time.

What you describe is a generalized problem with all news media these days.

My morning routine is to watch BT while getting ready for the day since they offer the only TV newscast that offers a chance at some local content at that time of the day. It is by far the most negative news you could ever want to see. Part of that is because the anchor is also the editor and so his own negative views of certain things get excess prominence - gas prices up! nuclear reactors breached! the economy crashing! garbage woes in HRM because the citizens resist become unpaid garbage pickers! etc. He is a very poor choice for the job but that is in line with the rest of the personnel on that program.

But that is just a local example of a bigger problem. As I type this I have just switched off the TV because finding some actual coverage of the Japan earthquake has been usurped by CNN and US west cost local news all focusing on trying to terrify people with tsunami scares and then sounding disappointed when they do not arrive. The media is like that alien creature in the old Star Trek episode that gets its life force from fear and violence, except in their case they get it from stirring up negativity among their viewers. It's all about sensationalism, conflict and ratings.

You can almost always find someone willing to speak against any initiative no matter how much merit it has. The problem comes when those voices get a disproportionate amount of exposure.

However, in spite of what I just said, there is some merit to listening to such groups as the Heritage Trust since they have in some ways made Halifax a better place to live. For example, such groups were able to stop the highway through downtown Halifax 40 years ago (Harbour Drive). This would have been a disaster for Halifax since it would have cut the city off from the Harbour.

The problem is they were not even heard when the container pier in the south end that the highway was designed to support was put in. Therefore for the last 40 years we have had an endless stream of 18-wheelers on the narrow streets of downtown. Is that really an improvement?

I have been impressed by Mayor Kelly over the past year. He has supported the new convention centre, the Central Library and a stadium in spite of all the negativity.

That is only because he has thrown any pretense of fiscal restraint out the window and is on a pre-election spending spree. The bill for those things is not yet due. When it happens, it will not be pretty.

I want to see what happens in Halifax over the coming year before condemning the entire HRM council.

You are being excessively cautious. The entire dysfunctional group should be tossed out.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What you describe is a generalized problem with all news media these days.

My morning routine is to watch BT while getting ready for the day since they offer the only TV newscast that offers a chance at some local content at that time of the day. It is by far the most negative news you could ever want to see. Part of that is because the anchor is also the editor and so his own negative views of certain things get excess prominence - gas prices up! nuclear reactors breached! the economy crashing! garbage woes in HRM because the citizens resist become unpaid garbage pickers! etc. He is a very poor choice for the job but that is in line with the rest of the personnel on that program.

But that is just a local example of a bigger problem. As I type this I have just switched off the TV because finding some actual coverage of the Japan earthquake has been usurped by CNN and US west cost local news all focusing on trying to terrify people with tsunami scares and then sounding disappointed when they do not arrive. The media is like that alien creature in the old Star Trek episode that gets its life force from fear and violence, except in their case they get it from stirring up negativity among their viewers. It's all about sensationalism, conflict and ratings.

You can almost always find someone willing to speak against any initiative no matter how much merit it has. The problem comes when those voices get a disproportionate amount of exposure.

News coverage has become sensationalism. CNN is a good example. I enjoy watching it, but when I want to see actual news stories on TV then I watch either the national CTV or CBC newscast. Or even better, I just click on the Google news button - it is much faster and I can focus on the news that I am interested on.

The problem is they were not even heard when the container pier in the south end that the highway was designed to support was put in. Therefore for the last 40 years we have had an endless stream of 18-wheelers on the narrow streets of downtown. Is that really an improvement?

I think that the truck traffic should be rerouted above and directly adjacent to the south side of the railcut (possible even have the roadway elevated above the rail tracks so that the road would be a street level), and then have a tunnel under the North West Arm near Pine Hill Drive. In my opinion, such an additional roadway off the peninsula will be required if the HRM continues to grow at its current rate.

The Gardener in Toronto is truly a blight on the city of Toronto, however, it would cost too much to tear it down. Boston spent billions of dollars burying its downtown highways, San Francisco has torn down one elevated highway as has Seoul, Korea.


PS: I have gotten off the topic of the Nova Centre.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by sdm

Your statement about what i said is incorrect. I think a new trade could work, but not this one. I don't agree with it because of a number of factors, being mostly its location, and the fact that it is a subsidized private development.

Whats wrong with the location?

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by sdm

...I don't agree with it because of a number of factors, being mostly its location, and the fact that it is a subsidized private development.

Maybe I don't understand the deal correctly but I thought that the convention center would be publicly funded and the rest would be financed by Ramia. He gets financing for the big project dependent on the convention center being built. That's not a subsidy, that's a deal he gets from his bankers, not you and me.

[q12]

Originally Posted by sdm

I don't agree with it because of a number of factors, being mostly its location, and the fact that it is a subsidized private development.

This sounds like the twisted uninformed STV B.S. that they have been brainwashing people with.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by q12

This sounds like the twisted uninformed STV B.S. that they have been brainwashing people with.

Location is personal opinion, and if my opinion is considered koko then i guess i can live with that.

The subsidized comment comes from decades of construction experience and development work throughout Atlantic Canada.

I for one am not a member of the STV crowd, just so i can clarify. Not everyone who is not for a development should be considered a member of such a backwards group.

If you don't believe my statements, so be it. But i always welcome a good discussion with someone who has experience.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by sdm

Location is personal opinion, and if my opinion is considered koko then i guess i can live with that.

The subsidized comment comes from decades of construction experience and development work throughout Atlantic Canada.

I for one am not a member of the STV crowd, just so i can clarify. Not everyone who is not for a development should be considered a member of such a backwards group.

If you don't believe my statements, so be it. But i always welcome a good discussion with someone who has experience.

For the record, I partially agree with SDM. I wasn't overly happy with the location of Nova Centre. I think it should've been located elsewhere and I have a list of places, but that's just me. But the design has grown on me and if they want to go forward with it - I'll be happy. My main goal is to see something built, location can be nit picked by everyone because where I may think it's good, 10 others disagree with.

My favorite spot is a building that the developer already built - I wanted them to remove summit place and build it there at the bottom of Sackville, as part of a waterfront development. But yet again, just me.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by sdm

Location is personal opinion, and if my opinion is considered koko then i guess i can live with that.

The subsidized comment comes from decades of construction experience and development work throughout Atlantic Canada.

I for one am not a member of the STV crowd, just so i can clarify. Not everyone who is not for a development should be considered a member of such a backwards group.

If you don't believe my statements, so be it. But i always welcome a good discussion with someone who has experience.

I see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure if the scale of something like Nova Centre has seen the day of light in Halifax for over 25 years...

The past experiences such as scotia square, etc have not been all good and this is constantly reminded to us by the fringe groups. I think I'm just a bit more optimistic.

[Waye Mason]

Not wanting to hand a big god damn cheque to a private developer to subsidize a development does not mean that one is having wine and cheese with those STV people. It just means you have an ounce of sense. To me the argument that those Fusion types are throwing out are just as bad as the arguments the STV people use. "Catalytic momentum"? Blarg.

If the only way we can get developers to build big things downtown is to pay them with taxpayers dollars to subsidize construction, then we should NOT build. If the market cannot justify funding a development, the market fundamentals will not be different after the government builds it anyway.

Too bad a needed project - renovated/expanded/new CC - has been tied to a fundamentally crappy process and plan. That said, I have made my peace with it, we went through the forms, and a decision was made, and it is inside HRMbD DSMPS and we just need to live with it.

/rant

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Not wanting to hand a big god damn cheque to a private developer to subsidize a development does not mean that one is having wine and cheese with those STV people. It just means you have an ounce of sense. To me the argument that those Fusion types are throwing out are just as bad as the arguments the STV people use. "Catalytic momentum"? Blarg.

If the only way we can get developers to build big things downtown is to pay them with taxpayers dollars to subsidize construction, then we should NOT build. If the market cannot justify funding a development, the market fundamentals will not be different after the government builds it anyway.

Too bad a needed project - renovated/expanded/new CC - has been tied to a fundamentally crappy process and plan. That said, I have made my peace with it, we went through the forms, and a decision was made, and it is inside HRMbD DSMPS and we just need to live with it.

/rant

The 3 levels of government (if the federal government agrees) are only paying for the convention centre, just like other municipalities/provinces pay for their own convention centres, with financial support of the federal government. The shadow bid that was conducted by the NDP indicated that he Rank Inc. proposal was less than the average amount paid by other municipalities (the leasing arrangement that adds interest costs to the total price was chosen by the municipal and provincial governments). It isn't a subsidy, the HRM asked for a convention centre and Rank Inc. agreed to build it for a set price. So how is that a subsidy - Rank Inc. wasn't planning to build a convention centre in the first place and if Rank Inc. had to do it over again, they would probably say no thanks.

As much as some people would like to see Rank Inc. build the convention centre for free, they are not a charitable organization.

[someone123]

I think that what many are calling a "subsidy" is just a strength of the Rank proposal: they can build a new convention centre for less and make more profit by bundling it with other profit-generating elements like office towers and retail. This is also a strength from an economic development and urban planning perspective. Having a proposal on a major site consisting of only a convention centre that cost about the same would not be better.

[Waye Mason]

It is possible to fall in between the two extremes. I was for Alexander Tower, and Twisted Sisters, but against the Waterside Centre. I am totally in favor of King's Wharf, but I think that the city has been approving some really awful stuff in Dartmouth, all those Shubie Canal condos, so ugly.

I was against the new CC because the first renderings were so ugly and offensive. The later renderings and changes to the Argyle side of the plan alleviated some of my fears.

My point remains. You can be concerned or against the CC or any development and that does not automatically mean you are a supporter of NSHT or STV. It just means you evaluate each proposal on its merits and think that the objective is building a better city, not just pouring concrete. I think it is intellectually bankrupt for people who are generally pro development to be so negative about questioning the validity or value of some proposals. Some of the previous posters were making generalizations that are just as bad as the generalizations that Pacey makes.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

It is possible to fall in between the two extremes. I was for Alexander Tower, and Twisted Sisters, but against the Waterside Centre. I am totally in favor of King's Wharf, but I think that the city has been approving some really awful stuff in Dartmouth, all those Shubie Canal condos, so ugly.

I was against the new CC because the first renderings were so ugly and offensive. The later renderings and changes to the Argyle side of the plan alleviated some of my fears.

My point remains. You can be concerned or against the CC or any development and that does not automatically mean you are a supporter of NSHT or STV. It just means you evaluate each proposal on its merits and thing that the objective is building a better city, not just pouring concrete. I think it is intellectually bankrupt for people who are generally pro development to be so negative about questioning the validity or value of some proposals. Some of the previous posters were making generalizations that are just as bad as the generalizations that Pacey makes.

You aren't intellectually questioning the validity of a project, you just aren't doing enough research to understand the facts properly. Or you are purposely twisting the facts the way the STV group does. As soon as you state that it is a subsidy then you lose all credibility. Another point that you don't understand is that it was the municipality, based on a WHW Architects study, that wanted to incorporate a large hotel with a convention centre - it wasn't Rank that demanded this.

My feeling is if Rank Inc. doesn't get the go ahead soon then they will just decide to proceed without the convention centre and go with a plan B. Then if the HRM and province wants an expanded convention centre they will end up spending more at a different location and it will be delayed for a few more years. Then you can argue against that proposal also.

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Too bad a needed project - renovated/expanded/new CC - has been tied to a fundamentally crappy process and plan. That said, I have made my peace with it, we went through the forms, and a decision was made, and it is inside HRMbD DSMPS and we just need to live with it.
/rant

Is this the proposal that you were referring to - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Feasibility-Study-Vol-1.pdf . This renovated expanded CC involved demolishing the Metro Centre, building a new Metro Centre at a different location and building a new convention centre where the convention centre/Metro Centre currently stands. It was estimated to cost $300 million dollars (capital cost - not including interest payments). You probably don't realize that the municipality actually went with a less expensive option when they chose the Rank Inc. proposal.

[Waye Mason]

I'm worried about your blood pressure my good man, I thought you were logging out for the day?

It is a subsidy to pay someone to build a building you are renting. I know he offered to let the city own it after a period of time but that was the original proposal.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I'm worried about your blood pressure my good man, I thought you were logging out for the day?

It is a subsidy to pay someone to build a building you are renting. I know he offered to let the city own it after a period of time but that was the original proposal.

Thank you for your concern. My blood pressure is fine. Luckily your posts provide me with some comic relief.

[worldlyhaligonian]

The towers would be amazing condos and apartments if they wanted to reduce the level of office/hotel space in the development

I mean, the location isn't "terrible" as some people say... its downtown in a city! Trade/convention centres outside of cities suck!! Lol, anybody advocating a trade/covention centre outside of the core of a city without a real transit system is silly.

If the mix of the office/hotel/residential was recalculated I think the convention centre will be more successful. The Trillium shows how much demand there is for living downtown.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Trade/convention centres outside of cities suck!!

They're very boring for convention-goers, they don't generate the same benefits to nearby businesses (maybe suburban hotels), and they create boring cities.

If Halifax keeps spreading everything out in the suburbs it will perhaps technically save money but it will become a very boring, hollowed-out, and car-dependent city. There will be no reason to live there or visit -- without the nice historic core, waterfront, etc., Halifax is just a small town with bad weather.

[resetcbu1]

I totally agree, this project is a two for one deal ! Either way the tax payer will end up funding a new CC , whether it's this one or another. So why not have it in a world class financial center that may also help bring in major confrences in the banking industry?

[resetcbu1]

that is in respose to someone123 coment about CC funding being a strength.