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

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

The trust also opposes the development because the two towers that will only be built with public funding would block harbour views from the roadway on Citadel Hill.

I missed this line before. It is as though the Save the View group and Heritage Trust are leading people like sheep (or so they think).

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I missed this line before. It is as though the Save the View group and Heritage Trust are leading people like sheep (or so they think).

No I disagree; I think it's more they are clutching at straws. There seems to be some realization (to a degree) in the no camp that with all 3 parties in the NS government behind it that the only few hurdles are getting the federal money and making sure HRM is happy.

So they are pulling out some of their 'old classic' arguments. There was a council report regarding the STV petition regarding the road, the staff member who wrote it is a good friend and as I said to her in an email; she kicked ass with it. She went right to the point that the entire view wasn't saved, just the viewpoints and viewplanes.

I see this project as a wakeup call to a degree. As I've said to some 'obstructionist' groups I've dealt with in my career, the more they see you as a group that opposte things for the sake that you don't like change, the more people ignore you. That's the case here. I don't think anyone in HRM administration takes him seriously anymore because he's not even happy with the heritage conservation district.

Just ignore those parts of the article with him in it; I think the CH only did it to appear balanced.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Pfftt, a 100 room difference is nothing when making comparisons... especially because the larger events hosted at the Nova Centre will likely consume most of the demand and likely exceed capacity.

All of this stuff in the media is really nonsense anyway, if the obstructionists think that putting out all this negative publicity will actually change the result... then they need to rethink their strategy.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is really misleading language.

Not just misleading, but flat out false, given that not a lick of public money goes to the towers.

I agree too with the comment about the fact that Rank isn't out to build an "ideal" number of rooms, but the most profitable, especially given that "ideal" in that article is in fact ideal for the Marriott. Heck, it is not like the Marriott is going to decrease the number of rooms they have to make it easier on others! Again, it would be different if it were the public's money that was going to the hotel, but it is not. The developer has the right to build as many as they see as profitable, and everyone else will just have to compete with them, much like everyone else does.

[fenwick16]

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the article. I don't like the misleading statement that was made, however having the publicly leased convention centre as part of the Nova Centre complex will make the hotel easier to finance. So having other hotel owners on board and providing support for the Nova Centre complex is in Rank Inc.'s best interests.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Not just misleading, but flat out false, given that not a lick of public money goes to the towers.

Well, the STV claim is that the towers could not be built "without public money" because it relies on HbD height bonuses for semi-public projects. Of course, this is different from the government handing over money to a developer, but that is how people might interpret the article.

If obstruction of views is considered a "subsidy" then every building that has gone up anywhere has been "subsidized". The fact is that this allowance works in favour of the government - they can use increased height as an incentive to get better deals than would otherwise be possible.

STV has it backwards, which I guess is unsurprising, and the Herald article misrepresents the situation to the average reader who has no idea about any of this. They've done an atrocious job of informing the public, as usual. They might as well just give a column to Phil Pacey.

[fenwick16]

I just wasted several minutes of my life reading the garbage that you just posted sdm. The plan of using those two blocks wasn't hatched as a secret plot in 2008; it was included as a possible location in the report that was completed in May 2007 by WHW Architects - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-...tudy-Vol-1.pdf . Refer to page 41/314 of the pdf file.

The report is on the WTCC website - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/documents/studies/ . It has been there for several months now. I have absolutely no respect for Tim Bousquet - what type of person publishes such garbage.

[someone123]

Now that Tim Bousquet has written his grand opus, does this mean that we can move on?

[fenwick16]

Tim Bousquet has a real talent for writing fiction. I think he is in the wrong business, he should be writing novels.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Tim Bousquet has a real talent for writing fiction. I think he is in the wrong business, he should be writing novels.

to be honest, he has a number of facts that are not fiction, but absolute truth.

for your information, Rank closed on the property in feb. 2007 and can be confirmed by the Deed on registered on the property.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

to be honest, he has a number of facts that are not fiction, but absolute truth.

for your information, Rank closed on the property in feb. 2007 and can be confirmed by the Deed on registered on the property.

So..? Rank Inc. is a private corporation that bought land for the purpose of development. An architectural company (WHW Architects) considered this to be a good location for a convention centre and Rank Inc. submitted a proposal which was actually based on this WHW Architects report - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-...tudy-Vol-1.pdf .

PS: The most obvious fact against this being a conspiracy is that the proposal was ratified by a political party (the NDP), after many months of scrutiny, and they had no involvement in the initial deal (signed by the conservatives).

[halifaxboyns]

I have to agree with Fenwick here - I don't really see what the point of the article was? If Rank hadn't have applied for the RFP it could've been someone else.

Plus the fact that governments offer businesses incentives to move here is no surprise at all; that's called economic development. Look at the call centres and other industries, like Daewoo. The NS government offered them tax breaks and pay roll incentives - no different here. And I'm sure they were shopping around for the best deal - why not? Let's face it; a company has to be able to make money while being here, other wise who cares how much a government offers to move offices to HRM? They would just close them done once the tax incentives were gone, because they didn't make money - which is a waste of economic development money.

HRM can still be an international finance centre; I think Ramia has proven that point with the fact more major US firms are looking for office space in lesser known cities as a matter of security. Just last week several applications came in for offices from several major US firms here in Calgary - I can't say which ones, but they were mainly backup offices for their major US locations.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Rank Inc. is a private corporation that bought land for the purpose of development.

This part is already sketchy to about 60% of the readership of the Coast. To be honest, I don't think you will be changing any minds there. A lot of people just don't understand convention centres, don't like private businesses, and don't want buildings that change the city.

They don't understand that the cultural amenities they want are only minor economic generators in many cases and depend on other economic activity. The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by someone123

The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

AWESOME analogy. I will have to remember that one! Laughed my ASS off when I read it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

This part is already sketchy to about 60% of the readership of the Coast. To be honest, I don't think you will be changing any minds there. A lot of people just don't understand convention centres, don't like private businesses, and don't want buildings that change the city.

They don't understand that the cultural amenities they want are only minor economic generators in many cases and depend on other economic activity. The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this! Great analogy.

Its a pervasive anti-business attitude from their readership... unless its one of the private companies that they support.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

The attitude is like that of an 8 year old who wants to live off of chocolate cake.

I literally fell out of my chair laughing, because it reminded me of this.

[fenwick16]

I think the comment below is quite typical of some people's attitudes. And the person who posted the comment (John Wesley Chisholm) makes documentaries which are probably subsidized though taxpayers dollars (is he worried that there might be fewer dollars available for producing his documentaries?)

(source: http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-c...nt?oid=2027217 )

Thank you Tim and The Coast for this work. It's appreciated today and will become a valuable record for the future.

It's very interesting to note that every step of the way through this timline we were told that "it had to be done" or "Halifax is dying" and that we need "Economic Growth"; while through each and every month Stats Can produced and published statistics that clearly show Halifax and Nova Scotia are growing at a very good rate, even through the recessionary period when other cities were losing ground. Even as this Coast article is printed, this week's Stats Can figures continue the theme.

Non-farm jobs in Nova Scotia are up 2.7% for the year ended September 30, outpacing all other Atlantic provinces and the North American average. Average weekly earnings in Nova Scotia are up 3.2% for the same period.

So the point that has driven the convention centre idea is pointless. We wouldn't want our economy or to grow any faster than it is and there is no rational reason to believe government spending on this "scraps form the table" trickle down scheme could make it happen even if we did.

One thing is certain. Government spending on this project is our tax dollars NOT spent on the basic services, investments and policies we all expect from our government. It's a zero sum game that moves public wealth to private pockets and that is not what Economic Growth means.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I think the comment below is quite typical of some people's attitudes. And the person who posted the comment (John Wesley Chisholm) makes documentaries which are probably subsidized though taxpayers dollars (is he worried that there might be fewer dollars available for producing his documentaries?)

(source: http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-c...nt?oid=2027217 )

That line really jumped out at me, too. I said it in the article comments as well, but leave it to Halifax to whine and freak out about growth.

I'm studying architecture at Dal but I wouldn't want to touch a practice in this city with a ten-mile pole. Being an architect or an urban planner in Halifax must be the most soul-sucking job ever. Some of the comments I come across here make me want to pull my hair out in fustration, I can only imagine what the actual architects must feel.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

That line really jumped out at me, too. I said it in the article comments as well, but leave it to Halifax to whine and freak out about growth.

I'm studying architecture at Dal but I wouldn't want to touch a practice in this city with a ten-mile pole. Being an architect or an urban planner in Halifax must be the most soul-sucking job ever. Some of the comments I come across here make me want to pull my hair out in fustration, I can only imagine what the actual architects must feel.

It's not greener in another garden, trust me. I'll be in planning for 8 years in a few more months - most of my time has been out here in Calgary and we get it out here too (if you can believe it).

I've been enjoying the BS that the Save the view facebook has been posting. Apparently students at DAL are upset that money would be spent on this versus education. As much as I'm tempted to say why aren't they upset over money for roads, hospitals and anything else, I've decided to just ignore it. They are grasping, as is Tim and the whole anti-project crowd. I'm convinced thanks to Fenwick's economic analysis that even at the worst case; this would be a money neutral thing. But I am taking a positive position and I think this will be a good thing. It's certainly better than the whole in the ground there now!

[CorbeauNoir]

Things actually get BUILT in Calgary, though. I grew up there and if anything even close to what goes on in Halifax happens there at least it's done quietly. Could you imagine if there was a Save The Calgary Tower special-interest group running around filled with people with nothing better to do than fight tooth and nail against any development that rivaled the Tower's height? And that every time they did it made front-page news in the local papers and sparked weeks upon weeks of endless bickering back and forth in the editorial letters? Hell, I'm almost certain that the Bow has been orientated with the express intent of blocking off as much of the Tower's view as possible without anyone noticing :lol:

It's just so goddamn frustrating. Halifax has a fantastic Britain-meets-North-America feel to it but the charm of it comes from the fact that it's been allowed to evolve that way naturally in a way I've never really seen anywhere else (as opposed to something like Quebec City which, while beautiful, feels somewhat artificial since it's essentially been frozen in time). Using the old-world tourist sites to keep city development hostage stifles that unique evolution.

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

But I am taking a positive position and I think this will be a good thing. It's certainly better than the whole in the ground there now!

That's the other thing, not once have I heard of an alternate suggestion for the site from the anti-CC crowd. Tons of bickering about how the money could be put to better use but never any kind of actual alternative proposal.

It never, ever fails to blow my mind how people freak out about Barrington St as if it's downtown Detroit but apparently are hellbent on maintaining a gaping, crumbling hole in the center of the region's largest entertainment district rather than the NC.