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

[Keith P.]

I don't believe there is a thread for this and it seems it is about time given this:

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...1126rc1517.pdf


The CBC story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...port-1.5369969


Makes the anti-stadium arguments from Council members seem rather shaky.

[K-Man]

Thanks Keith for throwing this up. This is going to be an interesting thread to follow. I've only had a chance to skim the first 50 pages or so (I'll be honest mostly looking at the images ) but a few things are standing out...

1. It looks like they're only going to save the south facade and portions of the east and west walls. Later on it says 50ft. of the west wall. They're going to use original bricks from the rest of the building to restore the damaged areas of these 3 facades.

"The building assessment and subsequent heritage impact assessment by +VG have confirmed that it is not feasible to fully restore the Halifax Forum building. However, with the intended program for the Halifax Forum complex, a heritage approach has been developed that includes maintaining the south façade and a portion of the west façade of the building. These walls would be stabilized and incorporated into new sections of a rebuilt Halifax Forum which would be comprised of modern components. +VG has proposed other ways of incorporating the original Halifax Forum structure into the design of the new Civic and multipurpose spaces, including reclaiming the wood beams from the Halifax Forum roof structure and incorporating these throughout the complex".

2. The "parking". This is a quote from 'Site config & Parking' (pg. 8):

"The total number of proposed parking spaces for the entire site is 356, representing a decrease from current approximately 500 spaces".
This is ridiculous. They're hoping to increase capacity but have less parking? There's not even enough now when there's a major event. Christmas at the Forum comes to mind here - always a fun weekend to have to travel through the area.

3. A few more quotes on parking:
"A balanced approach has been taken in addressing the number of parking spaces"
"While the municipality is placing an emphasis on providing alternatives to cars and parking".

What does a balanced approach mean? And providing alternatives to cars and parking? If I have a bunch of kids and hockey gear I'd like to be able to park onsite at the arena. I like the idea of having a green space but if they're going to use the south end of the building for that and reduce parking then why not build a 3-4 level parking space on the north side?

4. This was interesting from pg. 44:
[I]"Numerous repairs are visible on the exterior of the building and at the time of the heritage registration of the building in 2003, 50% or more of the original brick had already been replaced".

It sounds like the building is only half original now anyway, lol...

Anyway, I'll have to have a closer look over the weekend. Interesting though. I have to say I do like the look of the tinted glass windows in the original openings. It says that they were bricked up in the '60's...I've been trying to find information out on that for a long time. But still no mention of those damn elusive gates on Almon St. that I keep looking for....

[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. Inside, the support posts go away (yaaay!) but the entire seating bowl is to be demolished and replaced. The reason for the demolition is a combination of poor condition of the existing structures and in terms of the seating areas and concourses, failure to meet current building codes, particularly those related to access and emergency evacuation. This results in a downgrade in seating capacity in the Forum itself from what used to be 5000 seated occupants and 2000 standees (for concerts, etc) to 2900 seats and an unknown number of standees.

Where the proposal seems to go off track is with the rest of the facilities. A new "practice arena" (let's call it the Civic) replaces the existing one built not that long ago but deemed to be not in the greatest of condition due to low-tender choices at the time. This has just 220 seats. The existing exhibition spaces and bingo hall go away as well for similar reasons, but are replaced with a new structure of only 7500 sq ft which seems absurdly small. By eliminating the revenue stream from bingo and other events as a result, the Forum commission projects an annual loss in profitability of $270,000.

The proposal also goes off to cloud-cukkoo-land by reducing parking from about 500 spaces to 350, and calling for an outdoor amphitheater (essentially terraced green space) on the site of the existing bingo hall adjacent to the Canada Post site. It also makes most of the existing surface parking lot off Almon St into green space, with the requisite images of people having picnics on blankets spread on the new grassy area. The Forum Commission has expressed its desire for more exhibition/multipurpose space but that can only be decided by Council apparently.

My initial take is that this is another staff grease job to some extent, overriding what those who are responsible for running the site originally asked for, and pandering to the usual HRM desires to have green space in every development while making life as difficult as possible for those who drive a vehicle. This is also further advanced by a comment in the report I found curious, namely that the frontage on Young St proposed for a 2-level undersized parking garage could be redeveloped (presumably sold) for other uses similar to those either recently built or proposed for the Young/Windsor area, presumably high-rise residential. That just sort of crept in to the report and is not a major focus but should be of concern to those responsible for the Forum site.

So using the poor condition of the existing buildings and the need to bring everything up to code as rationale, we end up with an approximate $75-85 million project. I would be less unhappy if the end result proposed was better - more seating at the Forum itself, more seating at the Civic, more exhibition space, and more parking. As it sits though, I think what is proposed is far too expensive for what is to be delivered.

ETA: I forgot to mention that in the front end of the report there are some excellent albeit small photos of the area from decades ago, along with an interesting heritage assessment report from about 15 years ago that gives some additional background on the history of the place.

[Colin May]

The proposed $112 million transit garage is not in the 3 year plan. The bomb truck and the armoured rescue vehicle are in the 3 year Capital Budget - page F 15 at this link
https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...91126bc3cp.pdf

[Haliguy]

Its really too bad the Canada Post sorting facility is there. This whole area could be redveloped with a new staduim combined with the Halifax Forum rededevelopment with room for condos and restuarants etc.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thanks for your analysis, Keith. I haven't the time to go through the report, but can say it sounds like a disappointment on many levels. Too bad.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Its really too bad the Canada Post sorting facility is there. This whole area could be redveloped with a new staduim combined with the Halifax Forum rededevelopment with room for condos and restuarants etc.

I agree, but council still is not supporting a stadium so it probably wouldn't happen anyhow.

[Keith P.]

Keep in mind that even if Canada Post were to relocate to Bayers Lake or wherever, those Almon St lands would not be free. They would go to Canada Lands who would want to either sell them at market value or propose their own development for it, as they did with the Ralston Bldg. That is a big piece of prime property and thus big $$$ to acquire, a different scenario than the Shannon Park site.

The other aspect of the Forum report I failed to mention is that (although it gives no details) the consultants have come up with a cost figure for the option of a full teardown and construction of a new building that bears no relation to the Forum, presumably another HRM aircraft-hanger multi-pad plus exhibition space building. That is only about $10 million cheaper than the Forum reconstruction option, which I find baffling.

It seems that with the ongoing creep of building codes imposing more and more requirements upon buildings such as this, restoration of such structures becomes more and more problematic. There is no way the 1927 Forum seating bowl can be reconstructed in that space today. It also drives the recommendation to replace the other existing buildings along with the Forum itself as all of them apparently fail to meet code requirements for snow load. Now, given that they all survived White Juan and the winter of 2015, I find that curious, but it is another reason to spend money.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Any specifics of why the arena would be considered unsafe by today's building codes? How could it be any more dangerous than the upper bowl of the Scotiabank Centre, where there is only one escape route (down)?

I get the sinking feeling that they are tossing this out there to gauge public outrage, and then use this outrage as an excuse to totally level the existing building and install the aforementioned aircraft-hangeresque arena that has become de rigueur in HRM... because it's... cheaper. And Haligonians don't want anything 'nice'... just 'cheap'. (Amid a chorus of "What about the homeless?"... without acknowledging that there are totally different budgets and totally different mechanisms in place to help the homeless, and that you shouldn't have to stop all development because there are people in bad situations)...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Any specifics of why the arena would be considered unsafe by today's building codes? How could it be any more dangerous than the upper bowl of the Scotiabank Centre, where there is only one escape route (down)?

This is from the report:

The exit capacity of the Halifax Forum might have been reduced with the addition of two buildings on the east and north side of the building, the one on the north side effectively closing the north exit doors.

Multiple non-compliances with the current building code are identified. The slope of the ramps leading to the seating stands exceeds the maximum allowable slope for ramp in an assembly occupancy building and all ramps exceed the maximum slope allowable for barrier free access. Required minimum distance between seat rows is not met.
Maximum quantity of seats between aisles within the stands for fixed seating has been exceeded. The rails at the aisle do not comply with the requirement for a lower rail.

The maximum travel distance between the high seating areas and the exits has been exceeded as well as the minimum required exit width through the ramps under the bleachers has not been met. The exit on the east side is also below the minimum required width. The code compliance review suggests that the emergency egress is challenged. The number of water closet based on the occupancy has not been met.

It is somewhat moot as it seems clear that no other option has been considered.

I get the sinking feeling that they are tossing this out there to gauge public outrage, and then use this outrage as an excuse to totally level the existing building and install the aforementioned aircraft-hangeresque arena that has become de rigueur in HRM... because it's... cheaper. And Haligonians don't want anything 'nice'... just 'cheap'. (Amid a chorus of "What about the homeless?"... without acknowledging that there are totally different budgets and totally different mechanisms in place to help the homeless, and that you shouldn't have to stop all development because there are people in bad situations)...

As I said, this is a staff grease job as is all too typical of how things are done within HRM. They call the tune and build "evidence" as required to support their predetermined conclusions. It is like playing poker with a stacked deck.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's interesting that the Forum has been allowed to operate as-is for all these decades since the new codes have been gradually introduced. Now suddenly it's not acceptable.

It's hard to see this as anything other than that which you describe. Thanks for parsing that out, Keith.

I will miss the old Forum once it's gone. Oh well, at least I'll be able to have a picnic on the front lawn since there will be none of those pesky cars getting in my way...

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's interesting that the Forum has been allowed to operate as-is for all these decades since the new codes have been gradually introduced. Now suddenly it's not acceptable.

It's hard to see this as anything other than that which you describe. Thanks for parsing that out, Keith.

I will miss the old Forum once it's gone. Oh well, at least I'll be able to have a picnic on the front lawn since there will be none of those pesky cars getting in my way...

I think it's probably a case of, like many other types of buildings, the codes change over time, but you don't really have to bring the building up to code until you want to do major work to it.

[IanWatson]

Any idea what the need in Halifax is in terms of seating capacity? Obviously 5,000 down to 2,900 is a big change, but if we don't ever have any type of event that falls into the 3,000 to 5,000 range then it could actually be much nicer to have 2,900 modern seats with extra space.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Any idea what the need in Halifax is in terms of seating capacity? Obviously 5,000 down to 2,900 is a big change, but if we don't ever have any type of event that falls into the 3,000 to 5,000 range then it could actually be much nicer to have 2,900 modern seats with extra space.

I would like to see the city use this renovation as an opportunity to develop a proper live music venue with excellent acoustics. They intend on spending up to 85 Million so some proper acoustic engineering and materials could and should be added. 2900 Seats would fill a major gap in the entertainment venue options for the city. I saw Colin James in the old Forum years ago and have never returned for Music events.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I think it's probably a case of, like many other types of buildings, the codes change over time, but you don't really have to bring the building up to code until you want to do major work to it.

That seems logical, there must be a threshold of renovation activity that triggers the need to upgrade to current codes. I think some codes, such as safety-related ones (i.e. sprinklers etc.) would have to be updated as they are introduced, however.

Thanks!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I would like to see the city use this renovation as an opportunity to develop a proper live music venue with excellent acoustics. They intend on spending up to 85 Million so some proper acoustic engineering and materials could and should be added. 2900 Seats would fill a major gap in the entertainment venue options for the city. I saw Colin James in the old Forum years ago and have never returned for Music events.

I agree that it is needed in Halifax. The Cohn has decent sound, but its capacity is only around 1000 people. I thought that the proposed art/performance venues were talking about a 3000-ish capacity, but nothing is concrete with those proposals AFAIK.

If they are going to rip down the Forum and not worry about its heritage value, then I would be on board with making this a proper music venue, however it seems to be focused on ice surfaces rather than performance space. The reduction of parking would make it less attractive, but likely wouldn't be a game changer.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree that it is needed in Halifax. The Cohn has decent sound, but its capacity is only around 1000 people. I thought that the proposed art/performance venues were talking about a 3000-ish capacity, but nothing is concrete with those proposals AFAIK.

If they are going to rip down the Forum and not worry about its heritage value, then I would be on board with making this a proper music venue, however it seems to be focused on ice surfaces rather than performance space. The reduction of parking would make it less attractive, but likely wouldn't be a game changer.

Yes, we are sacrificing $85-$100 million to pay homage to the Gods of Hockey.

The parking issue could be easily resolved by deleting the silly park idea off Almon St or adding a third deck to the proposed parkade on the north side of the property. If someone was being creative, that structure could be integrated into the multi-purpose space to enlarge it and make it more useful as well.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, we are sacrificing $85-$100 million to pay homage to the Gods of Hockey.

The parking issue could be easily resolved by deleting the silly park idea off Almon St or adding a third deck to the proposed parkade on the north side of the property. If someone was being creative, that structure could be integrated into the multi-purpose space to enlarge it and make it more useful as well.

I suppose it's the Canadian thing to do, but it seems like pretty much anything is justifiable if it can somehow be argued that it will result in the advancement of hockey in some small way.

The parking issue seems to be something that could be solved relatively simply, and would make a big improvement to the enjoyment of the facility for many. It seems like council is convinced that people are going to willingly give up their vehicles in a few years, so parking is optional for the place. This doesn't coincide with focusing the main purpose on hockey, which requires travel in the harshest season of the year with a large equipment bag and hockey stick, and often in the early morning or late evening hours. If they think people are going to travel to the rink on bicycle or using transit, then they are not thinking clearly.

Not to mention the stress passed off to residents of nearby streets, having their streets continually packed with cars and trucks of people using the Forum facilities.

The whole thing is a head shaker...

[hoser111]

Halifax Forum redevelopment plans narrowly approved by council

Council voted 7-6 in favour of the project that's expected to cost between $70M and $86M

Halifax regional council narrowly voted in favour of redevelopment plans for the Halifax Forum on Tuesday.

The proposal from HRM staff involves saving the facade of the 92-year-old heritage building.

The existing rink would be replaced with a new one that includes close to 3,000 seats.

The Forum facility would connect to a concourse, a second arena and a multipurpose space.

Estimates for the cost range from $70 million to $86 million.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ncil-1.5374670

[q12]

Estimates for the cost range from $70 million to $86 million.

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.