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

[phrenic]

Originally Posted by Empire

Someone must have a connection with a paper such as the coast. If a small permanent ad were run showing the link to the petition we would be on our way. Who has media connections?

You just need someone or some organization with money to actually put up the funds to run a weekly ad (you get discounts if you buy upfront for a certain number of weeks) and to pay for the design - which can be done on the cheap or for free (I'll volunteer).

Once you get a design and funding you just call their advertising director Beth to set up an account.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by phrenic

You just need someone or some organization with money to actually put up the funds to run a weekly ad (you get discounts if you buy upfront for a certain number of weeks) and to pay for the design - which can be done on the cheap or for free (I'll volunteer).

Once you get a design and funding you just call their advertising director Beth to set up an account.

Maybe fusion is interested in a promotion blitz?

[someone123]

Yeah, Tim Bousquet's articles tend to be very partisan and usually miss important facts.

He seems to have some fundamental misunderstandings when it comes to project funding, the usefulness of the development, and market forces. As I pointed out, it's not true that there is $100M floating around to spend on whatever. Leveraging private, provincial and federal contributions is huge for the HRM and should be a major focus.

It's also wrong to think of a convention centre purely as a subsidy for private businesses and complain it operating at a loss. It's an events facility similar to the Metro Centre and is an amenity that benefits the public.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yeah, Tim Bousquet's articles tend to be very partisan and usually miss important facts.

He seems to have some fundamental misunderstandings when it comes to project funding, the usefulness of the development, and market forces. As I pointed out, it's not true that there is $100M floating around to spend on whatever. Leveraging private, provincial and federal contributions is huge for the HRM and should be a major focus.

It's also wrong to think of a convention centre purely as a subsidy for private businesses and complain it operating at a loss. It's an events facility similar to the Metro Centre and is an amenity that benefits the public.

I do find too that tim is a bit radical and out to lunch, however he does have some facts here that i have spoken before.

This project could spell doom for others downtown, which would be fine in a free competitive world. However this project is being subsidized with public money. Even Cushman and Wakefield and other firms specializing in the "stats" business are saying over supply. If the centre can support itself then let private funds pay for it.

Look at cities with convention centres that are successful. Look at far fetch places like orlando, where there are a number centres that are larger and more flexiable then even the proposed Nova Centre. Funny almost all of them are privately owned, not publically owned.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by sdm

Look at cities with convention centres that are successful. Look at far fetch places like orlando, where there are a number centres that are larger and more flexiable then even the proposed Nova Centre. Funny almost all of them are not privately owned, not publically owned.

Halifax is different for many reasons, esp. b/c of the Canadian government

[someone123]

The biggest convention centre in Orlando is publicly owned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County_Convention_Center

It is 7 million square feet including a 2 million square foot exhibition hall. Opened 1983, expanded 1996 and 2003.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

The biggest convention centre in Orlando is publicly owned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County_Convention_Center

It is 7 million square feet including a 2 million square foot exhibition hall. Opened 1983, expanded 1996 and 2003.

correct. the ones that have office and hotel are privately owned

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Halifax is different for many reasons, esp. b/c of the Canadian government

subsidizing a development is still the same regardless of country

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

correct. the ones that have office and hotel are privately owned

The office and hotel component of the Nova Centre is privately owned. If Rank Corp can not fill the office component then it will be Rank Corp that will lose money not Halifax/Nova Scotia. Only the convention centre portion is being paid for by the HRM/Nova Scotia/Federal governments. This is not a subsidy.

Nobody has seen the final plans; there is a good chance that this will be built in phases as is the case with many large complexes. The 14 storey office tower would probably be the last phase; built when required, so oversupply should not be a problem. Regardless, Rank is the one taking the chance on the office and hotel components.

One thing that I would hope for with the Nova design, is that there will be an allowance for the convention centre to acquire more of the office component in the future if required for expansion. Possibly some office space could even be converted to open exhibit space so that a large conference and smaller conference could be held at the same time. It looks like this might be possible with the Nova design.

[fenwick16]

The city with the biggest convention centre is Chicago. This is a city that has a climate just as cold as Canada's climate and even so it has become a big convention centre. If only Halifax could develop more of the "can do it" attitude that Chicago has.

I for one, have become tired of the attitude that Halifax cannot attract business and cannot support even a medium size convention centre. Why does the Halifax area have such a negative attitude?

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The office and hotel component of the Nova Centre is privately owned. If Rank Corp can not fill the office component then it will be Rank Corp that will lose money not Halifax/Nova Scotia. Only the convention centre portion is being paid for by the HRM/Nova Scotia/Federal governments. This is not a subsidy.

Nobody has seen the final plans; there is a good chance that this will be built in phases as is the case with many large complexes. The 14 storey office tower would probably be the last phase; built when required, so oversupply should not be a problem. Regardless, Rank is the one taking the chance on the office and hotel components.

One thing that I would hope for with the Nova design, is that there will be an allowance for the convention centre to acquire more of the office component in the future if required for expansion. Possibly some office space could even be converted to open exhibit space so that a large conference and smaller conference could be held at the same time. It looks like this might be possible with the Nova design.

You are subsizing because the convention centre recovers the land costs for the developer. Therefore there is 0 land cost to develop. Furthermore the convention centre provides other amenities that also create a subsidy.

You will see most convention centres are centres only, and the ones with hotel/office as part are privately owned (for the most part).

I am not being negative, just pointing out the facts

[fenwick16]

The land in question is probably no more than $5,000,000 dollars value. The entire Nova Centre is pegged at $300 million, so the land cost is probably less than 2% of the entire cost.

I think that a big benefit to Rank Corp is that the convention centre will justify the hotel component of this development and will probably help Rank to get financing. The fact that most downtown business owners are in support of this development indicates that downtown business owners do not consider this arrangement to be unfair. They are the ones who should be voicing such concerns not someone like Tim Bousquet with nothing to gain but material to write a story.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I quoted two paragraphs from this story which shows how biased it is. Firstly - it condemns convention centre supporters for advocating a petition supporting a convention centre - why doesn't it condemn the Heritage Trust and Save our View for advocating their petition and website? Secondly, he indicates that the Hitler video is somehow an attack against the Heritage Trust - in fact I would think that comparing convention centre supporters to Hitler and his troops is an attack on convention centre supporters.

You have to understand that Tim Bousquet is a left-winger and so his journalistic training has gone out the window in favor of a slanted approach in everything he writes. He is an enviro-loon and is very anti-development and pro-Heritage Trust. He has no understanding of business and cannot fathom how this is a better use of funds than giving it to chronic welfare cases or dumping it into the black hole of health care. He does not understand economic spin-off or the way such a development can re-energize downtown -- he would prefer that the city spend money on things like rehabbing the ugly Khyber building and giving it for free to clubby arts groups. Nothing that gets published in the Coast can be taken at face value.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You have to understand the Tim Bousquet is a left-winger and so his journalistic training has gone out the window in favor of a slanted approach in everything he writes. He is an enviro-loon and is very anti-development and pro-Heritage Trust. He has no understanding of business and cannot fathom how this is a better use of funds than giving it to chronic welfare cases or dumping it into the black hole of health care. He does not understand economic spin-off or the way such a development can re-energize downtown -- he would prefer that the city spend money on things like rehabbing the ugly Khyber building and giving it for free to clubby arts groups. Nothing that gets published in the Coast can be taken at face value.

In addition to the point SDM has made, Bousquet's article also make some good points about how Downtown has been hurt by HRM's policies and actions out in the burbs. Hard to keep Downtown retail and offices full when there is vast amounts of cheap land and free parking out in Bayers Lake and Burnside. His article is slanted of course, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to offer.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by spaustin

In addition to the point SDM has made, Bousquet's article also make some good points about how Downtown has been hurt by HRM's policies and actions out in the burbs. Hard to keep Downtown retail and offices full when there is vast amounts of cheap land and free parking out in Bayers Lake and Burnside. His article is slanted of course, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to offer.

This is true, however, Heritage Trust policies of opposing almost every downtown development has a lot to do with minimizing growth downtown. Also HRM/Heritage Trust policies of restricting building height will make this worse. Add to this, the lack of a rapid transit system to get people from the downtown core off the peninsula. There are solutions to these problems, however, letting the downtown decay isn't an appealing alternative. At the same time, having growth in the suburbs is a plus not a minus (in my opinion). It means less commuting for many and it also means traffic flow in both directions during rush hour as opposed to mostly going downtown.

I would like to see more discussion from this journalist (Tim Bousquet) on how to solve these problems instead of opposing one step in the right direction.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The land in question is probably no more than $5,000,000 dollars value. The entire Nova Centre is pegged at $300 million, so the land cost is probably less than 2% of the entire cost.

I think that a big benefit to Rank Corp is that the convention centre will justify the hotel component of this development and will probably help Rank to get financing. The fact that most downtown business owners are in support of this development indicates that downtown business owners do not consider this arrangement to be unfair. They are the ones who should be voicing such concerns not someone like Tim Bousquet with nothing to gain but material to write a story.

Actually the land price is closer to 15-16 million range as its what was spent to purchase the lands. What happens is the office building can be built and the rent charge will can be made less then what others who have to have amortize the land costs within there rental charge

Additionally its the other way around regarding financing. The convention centre will provide some help in getting a hotel financed right now, albeit not easily. As stated before to build a hotel today you would require close to 50% equity to even get the lenders to look at you.

Of course business owners of retail and bars are in support of it, but they would benefit same, and i will argue the point they would do better if the site was more residential then a convention centre.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

Actually the land price is closer to 15-16 million range as its what was spent to purchase the lands. What happens is the office building can be built and the rent charge will can be made less then what others who have to have amortize the land costs within there rental charge

But why do you think that this entire cost is being included in the convention centre? This seems like conjecture on your part.

Could you provide a source for the land cost? The United Gulf block was $5.3 million but it is just one block as opposed to two for the new convention centre. (You might be right but it sounds expensive).

Additionally its the other way around regarding financing. The convention centre will provide some help in getting a hotel financed right now, albeit not easily. As stated before to build a hotel today you would require close to 50% equity to even get the lenders to look at you.

So you are stating that the hotel portion will make it more difficult to finance the Nova Centre complex? In other words, you are saying that without the hotel portion it would be easier for them to get financing (they might have a hotel chain that is interested in financing this)

Of course business owners of retail and bars are in support of it, but they would benefit same, and i will argue the point they would do better if the site was more residential then a convention centre.

Are you indicating that retail and bar owners are in favour but not hotel owners? I haven't heard this in the news.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

But why do you think that this entire cost is being included in the convention centre? This seems like conjecture on your part.

Could you provide a source for the land cost? The United Gulf block was $5.3 million but it is just one block as opposed to two for the new convention centre. (You might be right but it sounds expensive).



So you are stating that the hotel portion will make it more difficult to finance the Nova Centre complex? In other words, you are saying that without the hotel portion it would be easier for them to get financing (they might have a hotel chain that is interested in financing this)



Are you indicating that retail and bar owners are in favour but not hotel owners? I haven't heard this in the news.

Yes, the entire land cost and probably some development costs will be absorbed by the convention centre.

The land costs are the purchase price, which had been purchased some years ago by the developer. I would need to pull the old data from the purchase, but to give you an idea, the midtown site was bought for 1 million just a year ago (very small site).

In regards to the hotel financing. What i am saying is financing of a Hotel is next to impossible these days without large equity requirements. This is due in park to the lower occupancy rates, REVPar rates close to where we werein the 1990's and the over supply (check PKF for the data). Lenders deem these developments (hotels) to be the high a risk. The convention centre being attached would provide some assistance to getting it financed, however it will still be very difficult nonetheless.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

This is true, however, Heritage Trust policies of opposing almost every downtown development has a lot to do with minimizing growth downtown. Also HRM/Heritage Trust policies of restricting building height will make this worse. Add to this, the lack of a rapid transit system to get people from the downtown core off the peninsula. There are solutions to these problems, however, letting the downtown decay isn't an appealing alternative. At the same time, having growth in the suburbs is a plus not a minus (in my opinion). It means less commuting for many and it also means traffic flow in both directions during rush hour as opposed to mostly going downtown.

I would like to see more discussion from this journalist (Tim Bousquet) on how to solve these problems instead of opposing one step in the right direction.

The political battles fought over some proposals undoubtedly has an impact, however, more often than not, council says yes. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the lack of development Downtown has had more to do with basic market conditions then anything else. If the market were there, Internaional Place would have gone ahead ages ago since it has been approved for years. Blaming the Heritage Trust is easy, but that doesn't make it so.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

Yes, the entire land cost and probably some development costs will be absorbed by the convention centre.

Could you provide a source for this? When you say the convention centre, are you indicating the entire complex (including the hotel and office buildings). Otherwise, if you are stating that the HRM/Provincial/Federal governments are paying for the entire land cost then you must have very good inside information since these details have not been worked out - the detailed cost analysis is still ongoing. And in any case, if the three levels of government build a convention centre alone, then most likely the land cost will not be free (unless it is on government property). There was a Request for Proposals and this one was chosen as the best option. I would think that the HRM must have had a reason to select this one - likely because it was the lowest priced option. If another site had of been selected would you still be opposed? It seems like a common problem in the HRM - oppose everything.

In regards to the hotel financing. What i am saying is financing of a Hotel is next to impossible these days without large equity requirements. This is due in park to the lower occupancy rates, REVPar rates close to where we werein the 1990's and the over supply (check PKF for the data). Lenders deem these developments (hotels) to be the high a risk. The convention centre being attached would provide some assistance to getting it financed, however it will still be very difficult nonetheless.

This is changing, banks want to lend money and from what I have heard there is money being invested in Canada. Canada is considered to be a safer location than the US.