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

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

.
.
.
It would be interesting to go back a few years and trace the transfer of the land the Midtown Tavern folks attempted to develop to Rank and then the selection of this site for the convention centre.
.
.
.

It is quite easy to go back a few years by doing an internet search.

HRM commissioned a study in 2007 on expanding the WTCC. WHW Architects was the firm chosen to do the study and included the 2-block Midtown Tavern/Herald site as a possible location. At that time (2007) those blocks were not owned by Rank Inc. Here is a link to the WHW study - http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/site-t..._Feasibility_Study_Volume_1_May_2007.pdf

Since Rank Inc. took the risk of buying the site and preparing a proposal for the RFP then in my opinion, good for them. Halifax and Nova Scotia needs more risk takers to grow the economy. Often such risk takers end up losing almost everything that they have so I am hoping that the convention centre and Rank Inc. will be a success story.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Since Rank Inc. took the risk of buying the site and preparing a proposal for the RFP then in my opinion, good for them. Halifax and Nova Scotia needs more risk takers to grow the economy. Often such risk takers end up losing almost everything that they have so I am hoping that the convention centre and Rank Inc. will be a success story.

Amen.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

I think the convention centre debate is very complex and has been reduced to the opposition of heritage/aesthetics and economic development. I am not opposed to the idea of a new convention centre but I am not fully in support of the execution of the Nova Centre, in particular the way the decision-making and planning components have proceeded, and in particular the location and emerging design details. For instance, I think that closing Grafton Street to traffic and covering it is a terrible idea - bad planning, basically impossible to execute well. I can't understand why the community consultations insisted that putting the ballroom above ground would be a good idea. Instead of a day-lit street, the public will now have a covered street, likely dead, and a ballroom (with windows!) that most will never step foot inside. Brilliant.
It would be interesting to go back a few years and trace the transfer of the land the Midtown Tavern folks attempted to develop to Rank and then the selection of this site for the convention centre.
I have said this many times (perhaps not here) but it would have made far more sense to put a convention centre on the waterfront which is already a tourism-focused area with large empty lots. Vancouver provides a perfect model for this and Seattle shows how what we're doing, from a planning point of view, is shitty.
I think it's a shame that opposition to the convention centre is framed by the idea of "save the view". For me it's more an issue of "save the street". That block of Grafton Street is nothing special but it's treatment is symbolic of a disregard for planning rules developed through important historical precedents. By-laws prevent the consolidation of downtown blocks because we did that to create Scotia Square in the 60s and it was a disaster. Also, symbolically, streets in general are vital to cities as public spaces.
Anyway, I agree that it's unlikely the plans will change. I think, however, that we should maintain a discussion that goes beyond heritage versus development and considers whether this is good design, good planning, and the proper use of public funds, if only to learn from this experience should it prove to not be a success.

Couldn't agree more. Covering over Grafton is a mistake. Built-over streets rarely, if ever, work. They're almost always dark, dirty and unattractive spaces that people just hurry through. I would have preferred a different location for the convention centre, but having selected this site, we would have been better off to have left the convention floor plate below ground rather than cover Grafton. I would add that giving Rank special permission via a provincial declaration to start building without any approvals was also extraordinary and, in my opinion, a completely unwarranted measure. Doing that effectively took discussions of design off the table because it made trying to change anything a huge cost to the developer. It's too bad that the pro and opposed camps have turned this into such a poisoned atmosphere that you're either for or against and there is no room to discuss anything else.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Couldn't agree more. Covering over Grafton is a mistake. Built-over streets rarely, if ever, work. They're almost always dark, dirty and unattractive spaces that people just hurry through. I would have preferred a different location for the convention centre, but having selected this site, we would have been better off to have left the convention floor plate below ground rather than cover Grafton. I would add that giving Rank special permission via a provincial declaration to start building without any approvals was also extraordinary and, in my opinion, a completely unwarranted measure. Doing that effectively took discussions of design off the table because it made trying to change anything a huge cost to the developer. It's too bad that the pro and opposed camps have turned this into such a poisoned atmosphere that you're either for or against and there is no room to discuss anything else.

Again, the point is not that the debate has turned into those who are "for and against" the Centre.

It's between those who are for debating the remaining design questions (outlined in Waye's piece in the herald today), getting this built, and doing whatever necessary to ensure its successful, and moving on to address the other needs and challenges of the city...

...And those who are attempting to sabotage the project through deceptive polls and media pieces, lawyers and litigation and, in the process, subvert the political will of three elected levels of government, that has already decided to approve this project.

PS: also, my understanding is the floor plate was moved above ground in response to public input on site design.

[Phalanx]

I think the covered street, as depicted in the early renderings (a high, glass covered arch), would have been a much nicer than what we're getting, but... people wanted the convention space above ground, so compromises had to be made.

[worldlyhaligonian]

On a portion of street that looked like a bomb hit it on either side for 10 years, in a direct route between bars in a city that gets alot of rain and snow... one covered street is a good idea.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Couldn't agree more. Covering over Grafton is a mistake. Built-over streets rarely, if ever, work. They're almost always dark, dirty and unattractive spaces that people just hurry through. I would have preferred a different location for the convention centre, but having selected this site, we would have been better off to have left the convention floor plate below ground rather than cover Grafton. I would add that giving Rank special permission via a provincial declaration to start building without any approvals was also extraordinary and, in my opinion, a completely unwarranted measure. Doing that effectively took discussions of design off the table because it made trying to change anything a huge cost to the developer. It's too bad that the pro and opposed camps have turned this into such a poisoned atmosphere that you're either for or against and there is no room to discuss anything else.

I agree with most of your comments but I have to disagree with what you have posted. For the following reasons.

It appears to me that Rank Inc made a conscious effort to avoid being one of the "dark, dirty and unattractive spaces" that you are concerned about. They took the following steps to avoid this potential problem as can be seen in the following link - http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk/documents/18708SiteandBuildingPlansandImagesoftheProposal.pdf:
1) Grafton Street is only partly covered. Looking at the plans from the referenced link, 1/3 of the street is actually open and only 2/3's of the street is covered.
2) There are retail spaces on both sides so the space will attract pedestrians and therefore not be a dead street. If successful, which we should all hope for, it will be a very lively street where events can be held even on rainy days.
3) There is a large open space in the centre and the covered space is two storeys high so it seems to have been designed to avoid becoming a cramped space.
4) I assume that the covered space will be well lit as illustrated in the renderings. I can't see why a completely enclosed mall can be well lit but a partly covered street, which is open at two ends, can't be?
5) It should be one of the safer streets in Halifax. I believe this because the lobby of a luxury hotel will open onto this space. The hotel lobby will be open 24 hours a day, as are most hotels, so there will always be people in the lobby.

I did a quick Google search and was able to find examples of cities which have large networks of covered streets that are successful (for example Osaka, Japan - http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhoto...498329-Osaka_Osaka_Prefecture_Kinki.html ).

I disagree with your stated opinion that it has become "a poisoned atmosphere that you're either for or against and there is no room to discuss anything else". To the contrary of your stated opinion, it seems that many people actually like the design and have stated why.

[fenwick16]

The following story from the Chronicle Herald is an illustration of misleading journalism.

(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1203230-cautionary-tale-of-a-convention-centre )

Cautionary tale of a convention centre
PAUL MCLEOD OTTAWA BUREAU
Published April 25, 2014 - 6:32pm
Last Updated April 25, 2014 - 6:50pm

After taxpayers footed the bill for a $170-million renovation, the Ottawa Convention Centre now says it cannot tell the public whether it brought in more visitors.

Strangely, the publicly owned centre says it has no records on out-of-town visitors before or during the renovations.

There might be reason to forget.

ALSO SEE: Poll: People oppose Halifax convention centre

The sparkling new centre, with a glass facade that overlooks the Rideau Canal, was supposed to double the number of out-of-town delegates. But documents show it is not only drawing fewer visitors, but tens of thousands fewer visitors each year.
.
.
.
But instead of skyrocketing, those numbers have plummeted. The centre would only release two years of data for the new building. In 2011-12 the number of out-of-town guests was 43,850. The following year it was 54,400.

That’s a drop of 45 per cent and 32 per cent respectively from the old centre’s numbers, according to the centre’s own figures.

Both the results and the secrecy are alarming, said Canadian Taxpayers Federation Atlantic director Kevin Lacey.
.
.

Reading the article, "Cautionary tale of a convention centre", it seems that the author purposely is misleading the readers. He states "Strangely, the publicly owned centre says it has no records on out-of-town visitors before or during the renovations." However, later in the story he states "That’s a drop of 45 per cent and 32 per cent respectively from the old centre’s numbers, according to the centre’s own figures."

It appears to me that the author of the Chronicle Herald story relied on the Ipsos Reid economic impact study quoted in the following story from the Ottawa Sun. In the Chronicle Herald story the number of out-of-town visitors quoted for 2012 was 54,400. However, in the Ottawa Sun article below, it is clearly stated that the 54,000 out-of-town visitors was for 57 select events where at least a quarter of the delegates were from out of town. (However, there would have been many more events with out-of-town visitors that weren't in the Ipsos Reid economic impact study because the number of delegates were below the 25% cut-off level).

I think the real Chronicle Herald story should have been titled "I can't give an accurate story because I didn't take the time to get accurate numbers"



(source: http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/05/13/city-cashes-in-on-ottawa-convention-centre )

City cashes in on Ottawa Convention Centre 4

BY TONY SPEARS ,OTTAWA SUN
FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013 06:39 PM EDT | UPDATED: MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013 06:45 PM EDT

The Ottawa Convention Centre generated over $100 million for the local economy last year, according to a report released Monday.

The Ipsos Reid economic impact study — commissioned by the Convention Centre — focused on events drawing at least a quarter of the participants from outside the National Capital Region.

Those 57 events — drawing 54,000 out-of-towners — led to $101 million in direct spending, Ipsos Reid found.
.
.
.

It should be pointed out that both stories are describing the same numbers, but the Ottawa Sun story was written on May 13, 2013 and the Chronicle Herald story was written on April 25th, 2014. It makes me wonder how the same statistics can be written about with two completely different slants - one positive and one negative.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Again, the point is not that the debate has turned into those who are "for and against" the Centre.

It's between those who are for debating the remaining design questions (outlined in Waye's piece in the herald today), getting this built, and doing whatever necessary to ensure its successful, and moving on to address the other needs and challenges of the city...

...And those who are attempting to sabotage the project through deceptive polls and media pieces, lawyers and litigation and, in the process, subvert the political will of three elected levels of government, that has already decided to approve this project.

PS: also, my understanding is the floor plate was moved above ground in response to public input on site design.

I wish this were true, but my feeling is the debate has been so hijacked and polarized that there is little room for serious design discussion. Maybe here on this forum, but not anywhere else. All I hear out in the public and in the media is everything is perfect or the convention centre will unleash the apocalypse.

Originally Posted by Phalanx

I think the covered street, as depicted in the early renderings (a high, glass covered arch), would have been a much nicer than what we're getting, but... people wanted the convention space above ground, so compromises had to be made.

True, but was the criticism of the convention space being below-ground an actual criticism of the design or was it just a handy symbol for the opponents, who were already opposed because of the height, to grab onto? I think a lot of it was the later. If the feedback that the below-ground centre was a problem was genuine, we still haven't had a discussion about whether moving it above ground and covering Grafton is a suitable alternative. That has never been presented to the public for comment. In theory that's what Tuesday should be, but I don't think we're going to get that in any kind of meaningful way. Good for Waye for trying to point people in that direction, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It appears to me that Rank Inc made a conscious effort to avoid being one of the "dark, dirty and unattractive spaces" that you are concerned about. They took the following steps to avoid this potential problem as can be seen in the following link - http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk/documents/18708SiteandBuildingPlansandImagesoftheProposal.pdf:
1) Grafton Street is only partly covered. Looking at the plans from the referenced link, 1/3 of the street is actually open and only 2/3's of the street is covered.
2) There are retail spaces on both sides so the space will attract pedestrians and therefore not be a dead street. If successful, which we should all hope for, it will be a very lively street where events can be held even on rainy days.
3) There is a large open space in the centre and the covered space is two storeys high so it seems to have been designed to avoid becoming a cramped space.
4) I assume that the covered space will be well lit as illustrated in the renderings. I can't see why a completely enclosed mall can be well lit but a partly covered street, which is open at two ends, can't be?
5) It should be one of the safer streets in Halifax. I believe this because the lobby of a luxury hotel will open onto this space. The hotel lobby will be open 24 hours a day, as are most hotels, so there will always be people in the lobby.

I did a quick Google search and was able to find examples of cities which have large networks of covered streets that are successful (for example Osaka, Japan - http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhoto...498329-Osaka_Osaka_Prefecture_Kinki.html ).

I agree Fenwick that it could be much worse! I think we need to draw a distinction though between built-over streets and glassed-over streets. The Osaka example is largely glassed-over and there are successful examples of that in the UK as well. Fremont Street in Vegas seems to be another approach as the canopy there lets in the light and they get a snazzy light show in the evening. Built-over streets though are an entirely different entity. Ones that I have been in include the Eaton Centre in Calgary and the Hyatt on River Street in Savannah. Lighting is tough because, on a sunny day, you get a major contrast between the built-over portion and the sunshine. Even if it's not really all that dark, it feels like it. Built-over streets, being not quite the indoors, tend to be grimy. Rain never falls in there, but the dirt and grime still gets in. The feeling of dirt gets magnified by the lighting situation. Two-storeys or not, I think it'll still feel like coming into a covered cave of a space compared to the actual outdoors. There will be people passing through the space, but being not quite outdoors and not quite indoors it's not a spot that anyone is going to stop and linger in. There are of course disasterous built-over streets like Seattle's 8th Avenue and Ottawa's Daly Avenue, but they're so awful that I don't think they're fair comparisons for the ho-hum version of Grafton that we're going to get. The original design of the Centre regarding Grafton was better.

Tuesday's public hearing is a foregone conclusion so I hope I'm wrong and that it turns out better than I expect.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The following story from the Chronicle Herald is an illustration of misleading journalism.

(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1203230-cautionary-tale-of-a-convention-centre )


Reading the article, "Cautionary tale of a convention centre", it seems that the author purposely is misleading the readers. He states "Strangely, the publicly owned centre says it has no records on out-of-town visitors before or during the renovations." However, later in the story he states "That’s a drop of 45 per cent and 32 per cent respectively from the old centre’s numbers, according to the centre’s own figures."

It appears to me that the author of the Chronicle Herald story relied on the Ipsos Reid economic impact study quoted in the following story from the Ottawa Sun. In the Chronicle Herald story the number of out-of-town visitors quoted for 2012 was 54,400. However, in the Ottawa Sun article below, it is clearly stated that the 54,000 out-of-town visitors was for 57 select events where at least a quarter of the delegates were from out of town. (However, there would have been many more events with out-of-town visitors that weren't in the Ipsos Reid economic impact study because the number of delegates were below the 25% cut-off level).

I think the real Chronicle Herald story should have been titled "I can't give an accurate story because I didn't take the time to get accurate numbers"

(source: http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/05/13/city-cashes-in-on-ottawa-convention-centre )

This is outrageous. Fenwick, you should write a letter to the editor, pointing all of this out. Ridiculously lazy journalism.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

I think the convention centre debate is very complex and has been reduced to the opposition of heritage/aesthetics and economic development. I am not opposed to the idea of a new convention centre but I am not fully in support of the execution of the Nova Centre, in particular the way the decision-making and planning components have proceeded, and in particular the location and emerging design details. For instance, I think that closing Grafton Street to traffic and covering it is a terrible idea - bad planning, basically impossible to execute well. I can't understand why the community consultations insisted that putting the ballroom above ground would be a good idea. Instead of a day-lit street, the public will now have a covered street, likely dead, and a ballroom (with windows!) that most will never step foot inside. Brilliant.
It would be interesting to go back a few years and trace the transfer of the land the Midtown Tavern folks attempted to develop to Rank and then the selection of this site for the convention centre.
I have said this many times (perhaps not here) but it would have made far more sense to put a convention centre on the waterfront which is already a tourism-focused area with large empty lots. Vancouver provides a perfect model for this and Seattle shows how what we're doing, from a planning point of view, is shitty.
I think it's a shame that opposition to the convention centre is framed by the idea of "save the view". For me it's more an issue of "save the street". That block of Grafton Street is nothing special but it's treatment is symbolic of a disregard for planning rules developed through important historical precedents. By-laws prevent the consolidation of downtown blocks because we did that to create Scotia Square in the 60s and it was a disaster. Also, symbolically, streets in general are vital to cities as public spaces.
Anyway, I agree that it's unlikely the plans will change. I think, however, that we should maintain a discussion that goes beyond heritage versus development and considers whether this is good design, good planning, and the proper use of public funds, if only to learn from this experience should it prove to not be a success.

As a Halifax native and a long time Vancouver resident, I could not agree more that your convention centre should have taken advantage and embraced it's natural setting and beauty by locating it on the waterfront. Vancouver's is so successful on so many levels, first it's beautiful and integrates seamlessly with it's setting. Secondly it linked formerly detached areas with a seawall walk surrounding it with inviting shops, restaurants, a large gym, open plazas and more. The views are incredible and it drew even more people to the waterfront, Coal Harbour and nearby Gastown. It's sheer scale was mitigated by it's green roof and sloping green areas, when approaching the enormous building from the west, it simply looks like a hill. So brilliant on so many levels and it's sitting right here for you to emulate. Such a lost opportunity IMO for Halifax. It could have created such a focal point and draw for the harbour.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I disagree with your stated opinion that it has become "a poisoned atmosphere that you're either for or against and there is no room to discuss anything else". To the contrary of your stated opinion, it seems that many people actually like the design and have stated why.

I think he is right - for a segment of the population is is a full polarized debate. Not here, but in the world.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by connect2source

As a Halifax native and a long time Vancouver resident, I could not agree more that your convention centre should have taken advantage and embraced it's natural setting and beauty by locating it on the waterfront. Vancouver's is so successful on so many levels, first it's beautiful and integrates seamlessly with it's setting. Secondly it linked formerly detached areas with a seawall walk surrounding it with inviting shops, restaurants, a large gym, open plazas and more. The views are incredible and it drew even more people to the waterfront, Coal Harbour and nearby Gastown. It's sheer scale was mitigated by it's green roof and sloping green areas, when approaching the enormous building from the west, it simply looks like a hill. So brilliant on so many levels and it's sitting right here for you to emulate. Such a lost opportunity IMO for Halifax. It could have created such a focal point and draw for the harbour.

I'm certainly sympathetic to arguments that the Waterfront would have been much more ideal. That said, I think that there would have been even more opposition to the site, and more problems based on View Planes, etc.

And, as it stands, there are already ambitious plans for the waterfront that I'm happy about--, including a major new residential development led by the Waterfront Dev Corp, the HMCS Sackville war memorial site, and the new Discovery Center site near Emera.

We need to have *some* activities happening further up the hill as well.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I think he is right - for a segment of the population is is a full polarized debate. Not here, but in the world.

No doubt.

Personally, I would actually have preferred a much more modest Center and then use those two blocks for some massive high density residential. Jump start downtown with even more of an influx of people.

But alas, that is not happening, so my thoughts are: let's get on with it, and make sure this is successful for the city.

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I agree with most of your comments but I have to disagree with what you have posted. For the following reasons.

It appears to me that Rank Inc made a conscious effort to avoid being one of the "dark, dirty and unattractive spaces" that you are concerned about. They took the following steps to avoid this potential problem as can be seen in the following link - http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk/documents/18708SiteandBuildingPlansandImagesoftheProposal.pdf:
1) Grafton Street is only partly covered. Looking at the plans from the referenced link, 1/3 of the street is actually open and only 2/3's of the street is covered.
2) There are retail spaces on both sides so the space will attract pedestrians and therefore not be a dead street. If successful, which we should all hope for, it will be a very lively street where events can be held even on rainy days.
3) There is a large open space in the centre and the covered space is two storeys high so it seems to have been designed to avoid becoming a cramped space.
4) I assume that the covered space will be well lit as illustrated in the renderings. I can't see why a completely enclosed mall can be well lit but a partly covered street, which is open at two ends, can't be?
5) It should be one of the safer streets in Halifax. I believe this because the lobby of a luxury hotel will open onto this space. The hotel lobby will be open 24 hours a day, as are most hotels, so there will always be people in the lobby.

I did a quick Google search and was able to find examples of cities which have large networks of covered streets that are successful (for example Osaka, Japan - http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhoto...498329-Osaka_Osaka_Prefecture_Kinki.html ).

I disagree with your stated opinion that it has become "a poisoned atmosphere that you're either for or against and there is no room to discuss anything else". To the contrary of your stated opinion, it seems that many people actually like the design and have stated why.

I wish this could be put in the paper as a rebuttal to all the naysayers coming out of the woodwork. It clarified a lot of the recent comments, thank you.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

2) There are retail spaces on both sides so the space will attract pedestrians and therefore not be a dead street. If successful, which we should all hope for, it will be a very lively street where events can be held even on rainy days.

If it works out well, the covered portion of Grafton could be a new type of public space the city doesn't have right now that will be semi-outdoors but usable for most of the year.

Grafton's also more or less the "entertainment" district, and the covered streets seem to work better at night.

The biggest question I have about it is whether it and the stairs/escalators down to Argyle will feel like public space or private space. I think they could be inviting and therefore successful, but they could also be closed down at certain hours or they could have security guards shooing away people when there's no event happening, etc.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

If it works out well, the covered portion of Grafton could be a new type of public space the city doesn't have right now that will be semi-outdoors but usable for most of the year.

Grafton's also more or less the "entertainment" district, and the covered streets seem to work better at night.

The biggest question I have about it is whether it and the stairs/escalators down to Argyle will feel like public space or private space. I think they could be inviting and therefore successful, but they could also be closed down at certain hours or they could have security guards shooing away people when there's no event happening, etc.

Agree with all of this.

I could see a covered street being a great place for a seasonal market of some sort. It could be a great place for a holiday market in December, for example, which you have in other cities, but here, you wouldn't have to find a way to cover it up. You'd be "outdoors" but still protected from the elements.

You could also have merchants out on Argyle, beyond the covered portions.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by connect2source

As a Halifax native and a long time Vancouver resident, I could not agree more that your convention centre should have taken advantage and embraced it's natural setting and beauty by locating it on the waterfront. Vancouver's is so successful on so many levels, first it's beautiful and integrates seamlessly with it's setting. Secondly it linked formerly detached areas with a seawall walk surrounding it with inviting shops, restaurants, a large gym, open plazas and more. The views are incredible and it drew even more people to the waterfront, Coal Harbour and nearby Gastown. It's sheer scale was mitigated by it's green roof and sloping green areas, when approaching the enormous building from the west, it simply looks like a hill. So brilliant on so many levels and it's sitting right here for you to emulate. Such a lost opportunity IMO for Halifax. It could have created such a focal point and draw for the harbour.

I've said this before and I will say it again - the time for debating the past and what could be/what would have been is over. The Province setout the conditions of the RFP and people who had land responded - no one had land on the waterfront that was offered up or met the RFP conditions.

The focus now is on the planning matters of the public hearing - does the proposal fit the planning box and if not; why. The issues of the economic impact, location, government contributions - all are irrelevant to the issue before council on Tuesday.

That said - the discussions about the design in terms of Grafton street and location of retail are completely in play - because we're focusing on the planning matters of the design and the viability of the public open space.

[MonctonRad]

Agreed. Also, the location that was chosen isn't so bad. There was a big swath of land there ripe for redevelopment, and I think that the location nicely ties together the SGR district and the downtown core. It bridges (if you will) these two important areas of the peninsula and will in some ways unify them.

Also, there will be a lot of synergy between the Nova Centre and the nearby restaurants and pubs on Argyle Street, as well as the Neptune Theatre etc.

Now, we just have to concentrate on the final design elements in order to ensure this development is the success it should be.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The Province setout the conditions of the RFP and people who had land responded - no one had land on the waterfront that was offered up or met the RFP conditions.

There was actually a lively debate about the convention centre siting in this thread.. back in 2008.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There was a big swath of land there ripe for redevelopment, and I think that the location nicely ties together the SGR district and the downtown core. It bridges (if you will) these two important areas of the peninsula and will in some ways unify them.

I agree with this. These two blocks were terrible prior to this development. Even the lower block with the Herald building was ugly and fit in poorly with the rest of Argyle Street. Most of the ground floor of the Herald was blank walls. The building itself was not a loss and the Nova Centre looks like it will be a dramatic improvement, even if it's not without its own flaws or compromises.