[Halifax] Forum Redevelopment | ? m | ? fl | Proposed

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by q12

I thought we were broke and had no money for sports stadiums...

The new Moncton arena that seats over 8,500 costs about $100 million for crying out loud.

So it's fine to have a luxurious expensive rebuilt Halifax Forum, but the stadium has to be a bear bones community stadium. Gotcha.

1. This is a community centre that will be used more or less every day of the year.

2. It is incredibly frustrating the way those numbers have been tossed around in the reporting on this. The city has put the cost of a "generic two-pad," the least ambitious and cheapest option, at $64 million. (That would presumably be for something unremarkable and not-at-all fitting the location, like the Dartmouth Multipad.)

That means that the actual cost of the restoration (which is really more of a facade preservation, with an almost entirely new interior and additions) at $6 million to $22 million.

In other words, the "cost" of this project is somewhere between $6 million and $22 million, not $86 million.

[q12]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

1. This is a community centre that will be used more or less every day of the year.

2. It is incredibly frustrating the way those numbers have been tossed around in the reporting on this. The city has put the cost of a "generic two-pad," the least ambitious and cheapest option, at $64 million. (That would presumably be for something unremarkable and not-at-all fitting the location, like the Dartmouth Multipad.)

That means that the actual cost of the restoration (which is really more of a facade preservation, with an almost entirely new interior and additions) at $6 million to $22 million.

In other words, the "cost" of this project is somewhere between $6 million and $22 million, not $86 million.

I think my point though is obvious. They spend this kind of money for sports infrastructure (Forum, multipad arenas etc.) with little hesitation and somehow outdoor stadiums have been made out to be something that will bankrupt the municipality.

[IanWatson]

So here's a thought: would it make sense for the Halifax Hurricanes to move to the Forum? Their average attendance is only 2,000 people. It would feel a lot more exciting watching a game in an almost-full Forum than an almost-empty Metro Centre.

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

So here's a thought: would it make sense for the Halifax Hurricanes to move to the Forum? Their average attendance is only 2,000 people. It would feel a lot more exciting watching a game in an almost-full Forum than an almost-empty Metro Centre.

As long as the amenities were similar to what was available in the Centre, I doubt most people would mind.

[q12]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

So here's a thought: would it make sense for the Halifax Hurricanes to move to the Forum? Their average attendance is only 2,000 people. It would feel a lot more exciting watching a game in an almost-full Forum than an almost-empty Metro Centre.

They could have moved to the Dartmouth Sportsplex, it holds 3,000 if they wanted to.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by q12

I think my point though is obvious. They spend this kind of money for sports infrastructure (Forum, multipad arenas etc.) with little hesitation and somehow outdoor stadiums have been made out to be something that will bankrupt the municipality.

The point that was made to you in the reply to your original post is that the Forum is used as more than just sports infrastructure. The Forum also has a proven track record of providing service to the community via all sorts of different kinds of events and has a tangible case for continuing to do so. It's much easier to commit funding to something which is tangible with a track record.

Just because there's a financial case to be made for funding the Forum does not necessarily mean there's a financial case to be made to fund a stadium. The Forum fills a need.

[q12]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The point that was made to you in the reply to your original post is that the Forum is used as more than just sports infrastructure. The Forum also has a proven track record of providing service to the community via all sorts of different kinds of events and has a tangible case for continuing to do so. It's much easier to commit funding to something which is tangible with a track record.

Just because there's a financial case to be made for funding the Forum does not necessarily mean there's a financial case to be made to fund a stadium. The Forum fills a need.

I don't disagree with the need for a forum, but the lack of proper outdoor stadium infrastructure in the province of Nova Scotia has been shameful. It's funny how nearly every other province or state in North America or frankly worldwide, have figured out long ago that an outdoor stadium fills a need. Thankfully the Hfx Wanderers have shown that with flying colours.

I'm personally all for the forum being fixed or replaced, I would just like to point out the minimal debate it received to spend that kind of money versus the stadium that has been debated for decades!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

1. This is a community centre that will be used more or less every day of the year.

Well, the community use is in the 7500 sq ft meeting room, which is only a small fraction of that cost.

2. It is incredibly frustrating the way those numbers have been tossed around in the reporting on this. The city has put the cost of a "generic two-pad," the least ambitious and cheapest option, at $64 million. (That would presumably be for something unremarkable and not-at-all fitting the location, like the Dartmouth Multipad.)

Which cost well south of $50 million to construct just a couple of years ago.

That means that the actual cost of the restoration (which is really more of a facade preservation, with an almost entirely new interior and additions) at $6 million to $22 million.

In other words, the "cost" of this project is somewhere between $6 million and $22 million, not $86 million.

The number to construct a replica facade will be far in excess of those lower estimates, you just know it. Why that would have to be so expensive to graft on to a Burnside-style aircraft hangar facility which is what they are actually constructing under any scenario remains mysterious, as does the reason why the rest of the development is so much more expensive than what was done in Dartmouth. The lack of meaningfully different options (all contained the silly park, and all had the equally silly parkade) shows how staff can lead clueless Council members around by the nose to get the result that staff wanted.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by q12

They could have moved to the Dartmouth Sportsplex, it holds 3,000 if they wanted to.

But then they would have to change their name to something like the Dartmouth Darksiders.

[q12]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But then they would have to change their name to something like the Dartmouth Darksiders.

Dartmouth Tropics because of the palm trees!

[OldDartmouthMark]

The Dartmouth Capitols, because it's really the Centre of everything in HRM...

[q12]

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

In other words, the "cost" of this project is somewhere between $6 million and $22 million, not $86 million.

There's very little sense of perspective. This is one of the few landmark older buildings in the part of town it's in, and it's been there for around 100 years. This area is growing a lot too; it's going to need more services in the future, and it will contribute much more to the tax base. The restoration work will be enjoyed for many decades, and it's not necessarily more expensive than disposable buildings that are town down and replaced every 25-40 years. You can't meaningfully talk about dollar costs without also talking about timeframes.

I wonder what the quality of the restoration will be like. It looks functionally decent in the renderings, with a lot of windows being restored, weird vents being eliminated, etc. The building could be much, much more appealing than it is now. It's not merely a case of spending money to keep the status quo, but rather to bring back a building that's been hacked at over and over for many years.

One rendering shows that the new part will be partially clad in "precast panel with reclaimed brick aggregate". Not sure I've seen examples of that material. I've seen lots of disappointing tinted precast and imprinted patterns that just look fake.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's very little sense of perspective. This is one of the few landmark older buildings in the part of town it's in, and it's been there for around 100 years. This area is growing a lot too; it's going to need more services in the future, and it will contribute much more to the tax base. The restoration work will be enjoyed for many decades, and it's not necessarily more expensive than disposable buildings that are town down and replaced every 25-40 years. You can't meaningfully talk about dollar costs without also talking about timeframes.

I wonder what the quality of the restoration will be like. It looks functionally decent in the renderings, with a lot of windows being restored, weird vents being eliminated, etc. The building could be much, much more appealing than it is now. It's not merely a case of spending money to keep the status quo, but rather to bring back a building that's been hacked at over and over for many years.

One rendering shows that the new part will be partially clad in "precast panel with reclaimed brick aggregate". Not sure I've seen examples of that material. I've seen lots of disappointing tinted precast and imprinted patterns that just look fake.

Since I found out that it's not going to be a 'restoration' per se, I am concerned that it has the potential to turn into a botched 'faux heritage' recreation. I'm hoping for the best.

I can understand the frustration of those who have been hoping for a stadium, as I share that frustration, but I see this as a different thing. Like you said - it's a landmark building that continues to be an integral part of the community. It needs to be continued, so at this point the question is in what form will it continue.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Since I found out that it's not going to be a 'restoration' per se, I am concerned that it has the potential to turn into a botched 'faux heritage' recreation. I'm hoping for the best.

I didn't have time to read the report fully but it suggests that the brick facade will be restored rather than reconstructed. The windows will be new. I'm not sure what the "skirting" material will be.

I can understand the frustration of those who have been hoping for a stadium, as I share that frustration, but I see this as a different thing. Like you said - it's a landmark building that continues to be an integral part of the community. It needs to be continued, so at this point the question is in what form will it continue.

The city will always need to have a bunch of projects on the go at any given time. And typically these things are debated for years so while there might be 3-5 big capital projects discussed simultaneously, they don't all end up getting funded or built at the same time. Capital spending in HRM is around $150-200M per year, so when you talk about a 5-year period that's going to include a handful of forum-sized projects.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

The city will always need to have a bunch of projects on the go at any given time. And typically these things are debated for years so while there might be 3-5 big capital projects discussed simultaneously, they don't all end up getting funded or built at the same time. Capital spending in HRM is around $150-200M per year, so when you talk about a 5-year period that's going to include a handful of forum-sized projects.

Then there is the pension plan problem which staff discuss privately but never speak to the council.

[IanWatson]

For comparison, the budget for restoration of the North Park Street Armoury facade is $50 million.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't have time to read the report fully but it suggests that the brick facade will be restored rather than reconstructed. The windows will be new. I'm not sure what the "skirting" material will be.

I didn't have the time to go through it either, was going by Keith's statement in a previous post:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I spent some time plowing through the report today. Make no mistake, this is a total reconstruction, not a restoration. While the south and part of the west walls of the Forum are supposed to look pretty much the same as they were when originally built, they will be totally reconstructed with mostly new materials.

Having a lot of past memories of good times in that particular building in its current configuration, I have some personal interest in it not being altered too much, but I realize that this is now an unreasonable expectation. So... I am now just hoping that they respect the landmark when they do whatever they are going to do to it.

[Keith P.]

The report notes that much of the existing brick is spalling or cracked, in part due to the use of newer, harder mortar during past repairs. I take that (along with the mention of only the wooden beams being repurposed elsewhere) to mean that it will be reconstructed using new brick, as I doubt the contractor will want to use lime mortar on a new building.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The report notes that much of the existing brick is spalling or cracked, in part due to the use of newer, harder mortar during past repairs. I take that (along with the mention of only the wooden beams being repurposed elsewhere) to mean that it will be reconstructed using new brick, as I doubt the contractor will want to use lime mortar on a new building.

Sounds similar to the contention that The Roy would re-use materials from the original building, but in the end it was all hauled away to landfill, while a new facade that had little to nothing in common with the previous building was constructed in its place (and with inferior masonry work compared to the original structure). I consider that a failure, and the Halifax Forum is sounding like it will be a similar failure. Too bad.