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

[Empire]

Performing Arts Centre $74 million
http://www.halifax.ca/IAM/Documents/infrastructurelistevaluationexternalreport.pdf

On pg. 2 of this report that fenwick found there is $74million pegged for a Performing Arts Centre. Perhaps there is a way to combine the Performing Arts Centre with the Nova Centre?

[fenwick16]

The Ballroom in the Nova convention centre will be 35,000 square feet with about 30 foot ceilings. This might be suitable for some small concerts and performances. One drawback to combining the two facilities is that the Ballroom should serve conventions as the first priority. Would it be possible to schedule performing arts events around conventions?

The Dalhousie Masterplan mentions an addition to the Arts Centre (I believe this would be the Rebecca Cohn Auditorium) - http://campusplan.dal.ca/Files/Dalhousie%2520Framework%2520Report%25209-14-10.pdf . I wonder if it would be possible to simply renovate the Rebecca Cohn as a join project between Dalhousie University and the HRM/province? Another option is the Queen's Square project for a Performing Arts Centre. I just wonder if there would be too much capacity with the Neptune Theatre, Rebecca Cohn Auditorium, Nova Centre Ballroom plus a new performing arts centre?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

Performing Arts Centre $74 million
http://www.halifax.ca/IAM/Documents/infrastructurelistevaluationexternalreport.pdf

Right below the $30M Mi'kmaq interpretive centre?

[cormiermax]

30 million for a Mi'kmaq Intrepretative Centre?? What the hell is wrong with people these days.

[q12]

source: CTV

[DigitalNinja]

I would like to see a naval history museum I think that would be a good thing to add to Halifax, but 74 million for an arts center, I want some of what they have been smoking.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by q12

source: CTV

Huge post, how is everybody not commenting on how much better this design is.

I like it alot... the wall of glass is wayy better than the Eaton Centre look, and I see parallels with KW type of design.

[fenwick16]

The straight lines of the hotel section makes it look more modern versus the older rendering with the curved glass in front. It seems as though the exterior is not finalized so it might still change again. Is that rendering taken from a video clip? If the video clip is on-line could some one provide a link?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

I would like to see a naval history museum I think that would be a good thing to add to Halifax, but 74 million for an arts center, I want some of what they have been smoking.

The idea with the performing arts centre is to have a mid-sized performance venue with something like 3,000-5,000 seats. This would be larger than the Cohn or Fountain Hall in the Neptune.

As a proposal for a public facility it makes sense but the $74M figure is much higher than budgets discussed previously. Amusingly, there was a proposal called Nova Centre for a $30M or so performing arts centre that I think was to be located in the seawall area 5-7 years ago.

[halifaxboyns]

Fenwick - how did you find this infrastructure list? Certainly an interesting list. From a personal perspective; the airport stuff is interesting to me; but the performing arts centre came out of no where. Great find!

Love the fact that q12 took a screen capture from TIVO! Very nice and it looks awesome. The more and more this progresses; the more and more I'm determined to see the STV fail. I think that the move forward is getting people talking; which when this started with the previous government - was lacking. As someone rightly points out (when you compare the library); to a degree there hasn't been any debate about the tax funding. Just assumptions which left in the hands of people like mister negative (Bruce D) can be spun into 'tea party like rhetoric'.

Btw; to those who feel down about Halifax. Yes, it can be a downer sometimes. But have faith. I think the fact it hit 400,000 is slowly opening eyes around the city that it's time to start thinking bigger. You can't generate more tax dollars without spending some.

And being a displaced Haligonian in Calgary, the grass isn't greener on this side - believe me. From a development perspective; pretty much everything ends up at appeal. There is a landfill refusal being heard by our appeal board that is going onto day 4 of it's appeal hearing...it's crazy!

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Fenwick - how did you find this infrastructure list? Certainly an interesting list. From a personal perspective; the airport stuff is interesting to me; but the performing arts centre came out of no where. Great find!

I was checking for information regarding the Nova Centre convention centre and it was there on HRM's http://www.halifax.ca/ . The HRM has a good website with lots of information.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I was checking for information regarding the Nova Centre convention centre and it was there on HRM's http://www.halifax.ca/ . The HRM has a good website with lots of information.

Its an interesting list no doubt, but I wouldn't get too excited about it; its been around for awhile. It was cobbled together as a wish-list for "shovel-ready" projects when the Federal Infrastructure Stimulus Program was announced. It was then pared down to the projects that HRM finally submitted for funding. I don't think any of the fun projects were selected, and that particular program is done now.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by someone123

The idea with the performing arts centre is to have a mid-sized performance venue with something like 3,000-5,000 seats. This would be larger than the Cohn or Fountain Hall in the Neptune.

Yeah someone on here earlier had made the comment that maybe a new centre would overlap too much with other venues, but the Cohn, Neptune, and any potential performing arts centre serves very different needs/purposes.

Neptune is a small small theatre that is suited only to plays and small musicals, and the Cohn although having a somewhat larger hall has a stage that is only really suited to smaller musical performances (the backstage area is useless). Any new centre would only be taking "business" away from the MC, which hosts some of these bigger productions. I personally don't waste my money because the MC is just a horrible horrible venue for that sort of show.

I don't expect we will see a performing arts centre for a long long time, even though there is a need for it, and even though I would absolutely support one I would personally prioritize it lower than the need for a stadium (as I think there is even more of an unmet need for the stadium). In the future though I would love to see (and I think we will see eventually) a 3000 seat performing arts centre.

[halifaxboyns]

What a surprise...I was waiting for this:

Convention centre bad deal

By PHIL PACEY
Sat, Nov 6 - 4:54 AM
Municipal tax revenues from the proposed Halifax convention centre, hotel and office complex would not come close to covering the municipal costs.

Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd. (GP) calculated HRM property tax revenues from the project. The results are on page 27 of their December 2009 report on the Trade Centre Limited website.

To estimate tax revenues, GP compared the proposal to other office and hotel buildings in Halifax. For example, the proposed 18-storey hotel tower above the convention centre on Argyle Street was compared to the Prince George Hotel and was estimated to be twice the size. "This suggests the hotel portion could generate HRM in the order of $1.2 million in tax revenue."

GP compared the proposed 14-storey office tower above the convention centre on Market Street to the Maritime Centre. My careful measurements of the drawings indicate the proposal would have 41 per cent of the floor area of Maritime Centre. Therefore, the proposed office building would yield annual tax revenue to the municipality of $0.72 million.

The province has said the convention centre portion of the development would not pay property taxes.

The total annual tax revenue to the municipality would only be about $2 million.

GP also noted that HRM would incur additional expenses due to the demand for incremental services. On average, the cost of providing municipal services to properties roughly equals the tax revenues from the properties.

If governments do not fund a convention centre on this site, the two towers would not be permitted, and the developer would have to follow the HRMbyDesign height provisions that apply to blocks in the vicinity. The developer has said he has alternative plans B and C. Buildings of these lower heights would pay municipal taxes and incur municipal costs.

The municipal costs for the convention centre would greatly exceed the municipal taxes. The municipality would pay half the $10.2-million annual capital cost, half the annual $2.9-million maintenance and upgrade payments to the developer, and half of the unknown projected operating loss. The annual municipal costs for the convention centre alone would be about $7 million.

There is no way that annual municipal tax revenues of $2 million can cover the annual costs of about $9 million, including $7 million for the convention centre plus about $2 million for municipal services to the overall development. No amount of tweaking, tinkering or negotiating will change this fundamental fact.

The proposed convention centre is simply a bad deal for municipal taxpayers. We taxpayers have better things to do with our money.

Phil Pacey, of Halifax, is a member of the Save the View Coalition.

[halifaxboyns]

And now one in favour:
Stop bashing convention centre

By GARRY CRAIG
Sat, Nov 6 - 4:54 AM
We have to come to grips with whether we want a new convention centre or not. Initially, the opposition was to the towers; then opponents realized the centre could be the Achilles heel of the towers. The height of the towers was dependent on the centre being part of the project.

The business case has been made about the potential spinoffs. The opposition says we will end up with an underutilized white elephant; people won’t come. Well, that’s a certainty if we don’t build it. They continue to quote "experts" who give us American statistics. Attendance has declined from 2008 to 2010, with only a modest recovery in 2010. No surprise, given the state of the economy.

Some will say I’m biased because I’m in the industry. Well, I rely on facts to arrive at my support. Meeting Professionals International (MPI) Foundation Canada had commissioned an in-depth study for the industry for 2006-2008 with an update in 2009. The study was undertaken by Maritz Research Canada and the Conference Board of Canada and followed the methodology guidelines established by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).

The research determined that the meeting industry contributed $11 billion to GDP (add indirect industries and it was $71 billion), provided direct employment for 235,000 people and when the indirect employment was added in, 570,000 jobs.

The meetings sector, when averaged over the three years studied, contributed $14 billion in taxes ($1 billion municipal, $6 billion provincial and $7 billion federal). In 2008, there were 66 million attendees in meetings in Canada with 29.8 million in "purpose-built venues," 30.2 million in hotels/resorts and the balance in various other venues.

Delegates for all types of meetings in Canada spent $23.8 billion in 2008. The average spent by delegates was $360 and exhibitors $765. In their words, "it can be safely projected that ONE major meeting at a purpose-built venue will ‘deliver’ as a leading economic driver within a region."

Their conclusion: "There can be no question about the Canadian facts supporting the positive economic impact of purpose-built venues. These venues are proven to host the largest meetings attended by the highest ‘average spend’ per delegate. Purpose-built venues can only be seen as advantageous to all economic variables within any given region of Canada."

So stop bashing the centre; come clean and say the towers are the issue. We should be looking five years forward and not trying to freeze-frame today. If we’re not prepared to be forward-thinking, we could become that "backwater," as has been suggested!

MPI is sponsoring an information meeting on Monday, Nov. 8, at 1 p.m. at the Cunard Centre. Joe Ramia will be there to present his vision for Halifax and the evolving plans for the centre, and to hear from people. This is an opportunity to be informed. Uninformed opinions just muddy the waters.

Garry Craig is VP finance, MPI, Atlantic Canada chapter.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

And now one in favour:
Stop bashing convention centre

By GARRY CRAIG
Sat, Nov 6 - 4:54 AM
.
.
.
MPI is sponsoring an information meeting on Monday, Nov. 8, at 1 p.m. at the Cunard Centre. Joe Ramia will be there to present his vision for Halifax and the evolving plans for the centre, and to hear from people. This is an opportunity to be informed. Uninformed opinions just muddy the waters.

Garry Craig is VP finance, MPI, Atlantic Canada chapter.

Will anyone be attending this? If I were in Halifax then I would want to attend.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Phil Pacey

On average, the cost of providing municipal services to properties roughly equals the tax revenues from the properties.

Sloppy, misleading article, but no surprise.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by someone123

Originally Posted by Phil Pacey
On average, the cost of providing municipal services to properties roughly equals the tax revenues from the properties.

Yeah - this is definitely misleading. Residential development in particular rarely covers the servicing costs.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Yeah - this is definitely misleading. Residential development in particular rarely covers the servicing costs.

Suburban residential construction would be more of a drain than urban development costs. But I don't see the connection. I assume that you are going along with Phil Pacey's arguments?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Suburban residential construction would be more of a drain than urban development costs. But I don't see the connection. I assume that you are going along with Phil Pacey's arguments?

The office tower is commercial. Generally in the HRM these developments subsidize the residential properties. This is why it's misleading for Pacey to mention the "average" expense. Pacey either does not know this and is therefore not very knowledgeable about these issues (despite the fact that he chooses to comment on them) or is intentionally being dishonest.

I don't think planarchy is agreeing with Pacey. He brought up a point that brings into question the value of Pacey's statement.