Last week, provincial infrastructure minister Bill Estabrooks nearly made good on his pledge to release uncensored versions of the four reports that supposedly make the business case for a new convention centre—one of the reports, by Criterion Communications, was redacted in two places, and another, by the consulting firm Deloitte, had a redacted table in it.
Earlier, Estabrooks’ communications manager Cathy MacIsaac had warned me that “small portions” of the reports would remained censored in order to protect “trade secrets” —information that might hurt the competitiveness of crown corporation Trade Centre Limited or of Rank, Inc., the company picked as the private partner in the convention centre arrangement. I was skeptical, but there wasn’t much I could do about the censored parts of the documents anyway.
That is, until a reader alerted me to a laughable failure on the censor’s part. The reports had been put online, and the censor had simply changed the background colour of the censored portions to black, so that at first glance the documents looked like a typical blacked-out hard copy document. But the censor failed to remove the text, so I found that if I copied the “censored” text in the Criterion report and pasted it into a Word document, I could read it.
Turns out both redacted parts said the same thing: “recent costs in North America have been in the range of $400-$500 CDN per square foot for a typical combination of spaces, which suggests a very rough estimate between $120 and $170 million CDN for construction of a 300,000- 340,000-square-foot facility, exclusive of design, furnishings and equipment costs.”
How exactly this is a trade secret? Any number of trade publications report the same information on a regular basis, so it appears the censor wanted to keep the information not from potential competitors, who would surely already have the info, but from us, the public, in order to keep us from having informed debate about the convention centre proposal. (After we reported the redaction failure, the online redacted Criterion report became un-redacted.)
This incident is once again proof that Nova Scotian governments and crown corporations have a culture of secrecy and consider government information the private property of bureaucrats. I don’t know how else to say it: They hate democracy.
With yet another example of government secrecy run amok, on top of MLA spending scandals, P3 scandals, hidden $600,000 expenditures for Paul McCartney and who knows what other chicanery, it’s a wonder that anyone at all would trust the bullshitters and backslappers who run this circus with the $100 million the convention centre will supposedly cost us. (I guarantee you that figure will go up.)
But, amazingly, there are still plenty of convention centre supporters, and they point at the reports to argue their case.
To be sure, the four reports are internally consistent, and they make the case for a new convention centre. But they rely entirely on information provided by Trade Centre Limited.
Which brings us back to the Deloitte report, which was censored by someone with slightly more knowledge than that provided by an Idiot’s Guide to Censoring book—the copy and paste trick didn’t work in this case. The censored table lists $6.5 million in “lost business” for the existing World Trade and Convention Centre—60 groups that were going to bring 75,955 delegates to Halifax. But the group names are censored, so we have no way of verifying the information—we’re supposed to take Trade Centre Limited’s word for it.
But like the construction cost info, this is hardly a trade secret, and making the names public would hurt no one at all.
Again, I simply don’t believe TCL. I think they’re lying, or at least stretching the truth: I’m guessing that any group that made a single call asking for information and didn’t subsequently book a convention was considered “lost business,” and used to inflate the case for a new convention centre.
It’s not like this group of clowns has a good track record for being forthright. Why should we trust them?
This article appears in May 6-12, 2010.
Great work.
Personally, I wonder why anyone should believe your facts. Where in the reports is this number of 300,000 square feet mentioned (I keep hearing 125,000 square feet net). Are you including the square footage of the parking portion also (this won’t be $500 per square foot for parking). Why are you exaggerating the square footage in order to inflate the price?
Regarding the concert, the provincial and municipal governments let people know before the McCartney concert that they were providing funding. Do you understand that they get 8% PST on ticket sales, restaurants and hotel accommodations? Most likely they made more on the PST than they provided in funding. But even if they didn’t make money, what about the quality of life in the Halifax area. Should people always have to travel to a major city to see a big concert? I think that Halifax would be a very boring city if you were in charge.
This guy is a joke. Inflating the numbers, misleading the people who read his columns. Any author would be ashamed to have someone like this writing articles along side with them. Yes I realize this is an editorial piece, but even in an editorial, get your facts correct please. Peoples opinions influence others, and that is what Tim is doing. Well let my opinion influence the readers of this article that there is a lot of miss-information in here, and to take this opinion with a grain of salt.
The 300,000 is a direct quote from the report itself:
http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/site-tcl…
Hilariously, they’ve re-redacted it. Find the black-out part, copy and paste it.
Thanks for the information Tim. I agree that people have a right to question the cost of this facility, however, the report that you should use is the Deloitte Report that dscribes the actual Rank Corp proposal. The one that you quoted was a recommendation and not the actual proposal.
If you refer to the Deloitte Report it shows the proposed convention centre rendering with a detailed description. Refer to page 15 of this report – http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/site-tcl… . I quote the following:
“It is envisaged that the WTCC II will be a world class facility that contributes to the sustainable future of downtown Halifax and creates a contemporary public space unique to the region. As per the EOI requirements, the building shell would be approximately 200,000-250,000 sq. ft. located on 2-3 floors, with a 2 floor layout being preferred. Both floors would be open plan column free spaces able to accommodate multiple groups either concurrently or sequentially, providing flexibility of sizing to accommodate the needs of a variety of event types. The net usable space would be about 150,000 sq. ft. consisting of one large exhibit room with 30 ft. ceilings, one column less boardroom and one column less ballroom with 25 ft. ceilings, and 25-30 breakout rooms with 15-20 ft. ceilings. The lower level of the WTCC II would consist of the exhibition concourse, large exhibition hall, several breakout rooms, and storage facilities while the upper level would consist of the boardroom, ball room, and additional breakout rooms.”
If you would like a good comparison, based on a similar sized convention centre, the new Niagara Convention Centre is being built for $92 million dollars – http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/articl… . This will have a total of 231,000 square feet which is similar to the Halifax proposal – http://www.niagarafallslocal.com/NiagaraFa… . It should be noted that $35 million of that is coming from the federal government. Vancouver and Ottawa and also getting funding for their convention centre expansions.
If the cost estimates do come out to be $170 million then I will also question whether it is worthwhile since I am sure that the Niagara proposal would be more than adequate for Halifax. These cost numbers will come out in July 2010. Until then I will go with the square footage that is quoted for the Rank proposal which is 200,000 – 250,000 square feet – http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/site-tcl… . This is the total gross square footage. The net usable square footage is stated to be 150,000.
Allnovascotia.com is reporting 300,000 sq. ft, I’m told.
And why is allnovascotia.com a reliable source? Doesn’t the Deloitte Report show a drawing of the actual proposal – http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/site-tcl… . Yes it does.
Do the math, Tim. Those 2 blocks combined into is one, is about 300 x 350 feet total (source Mapquest.com) which is 105,000 square feet. However, the building will require space for sidewalks (so it might be possible to get 90,000 square feet per level). The drawing shows two levels for the convention centre with some levels split into two floors and single exhibit levels. This is easy to understand if you look at the link (there is a drawing right there).
I am going to stick with a description of the actual convention centre instead of using external sources that are based on conjecture.
If the cost estimates come out at $170 million then you will be vindicated. However, if it does come out to be $170 million then I am quite sure that the NDP will just say no thank you to the proposal (as they should, in my opinion). Halifax should be able to get a suitable convention centre in the $100 million dollar vicinity. If they can’t, then this will not be the right proposal. Since Niagara Falls, Ontario can get a 231,000 square foot stand alone convention centre for $92 million, Halifax can get a similar size facility for $100 million.
The 300,000 square feet could also include a level of parking or such, which would not be as high price per square foot.
I’m sorry, but I find this article to be both useless, and detrimental to improving our cities economic health.
At what point is any of the “discovered” censored information ground breaking, or important?
Any cost estimate includes Hotel and office space. This isn’t just a convention centre, it is an important cog in the economic engine of NS. It may not be the savior of DT Halifax, but it will definitely improve the businesses in the area, when built. I quote a peer saying this, “To be against this project, is to be against economical development.”
Why be inflammatory over a project, that we need to have followed through on?
To paraphrase P.T.Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every thirty seconds in Nova Scotia.” Dodge the Commonpoverty Games and hit the Convention Wall.
Hey, folks, see the rising $14BILLION Debt, ever think Grecian? What is the GUARANTEE against cost overruns? Recently, in Bridgewater a starting $8Million Justice Center ballooned to $16Million, no questions asked. Some Justice!
P.T. also said: “Dig the HOLE and they will fund.”
Tim and his friends would rather the money be poured into the drainhole called healthcare and social spending. Give it to the likes of Corey Wright and his peeps so they can buy more bling to shoot each other while partying on Argyle St., rather than doing something to improve the life one sees on that same street. It has nothing to do with debt management as the money will be spent in either instance.
Good article! Can we be sure about the spin-offs? If so where is the research? Tax revenue? Jobs? Fiscal return? Given the lack of transperency I very much doubt that the public will profit from this project, because there won’t be significant spin-offs:
In our beginning days of peak oil it is obvious that convention centres are a thing of the past no matter what some lobbyists are telling our CH journalists and politicians. The price of fuel will reduce travel tremendously in the near future. The new convention centre would therefore need further subsidies from the taxpayer to attract costumers with special deals.
If Mr. Ramia and his freinds were sure that this project would make profit they wouldn’t need our taxes to go ahead. Let’s see how they react if our government would ask them to act like real free market players.
Taxpayers must not end up paying the real price tag for another P3 — as we’ve seen in the case of the P3 schools, where only the private sector ‘partner’ makes windfall profits. Mr. Premier, please don’t waste our taxes on this nonsense project! This Nova Scotia old boys cronyism must stop.
Peak oil isn’t going to send us back 100 years. Now that people are accustomed to traveling quickly by air, new sources will be utilized to replace oil in airplanes such as hydrogen – http://www.springerlink.com/content/ul1742… . Hydrogen has been safely used in vehicles for years.
Even with oil, there is the CO2 cycle – fossil fuels are burnt and converted to CO2 which is then absorbed by plants converted to oxygen and carbon (which becomes part of the plant) which can then be converted to fuel which can be burnt and then converted back to CO2, etc., etc, etc. This follows from the principle of science called the Law of Conversation of Mass and Energy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_… . In spite of what we keep hearing in the news, these fuel sources are not disappearing; they are just constantly being recycled (it is an amazing world that we live in). Even oil can now be efficiently made from waste, if we must continue to use oil – http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anyth… .
In the future people might have to pay more for air travel as abundant oil becomes more scarce, however, airplane travel will not disappear. The disappearance of abundant oil will just shift fuel sources in other directions. So we won’t be returning to the horse and buggy anytime in the near future.