Already notorious, Tuesday night at council the Nova Centre development project assumed even greater infamy.
City council voted—unanimously except for Jennifer Watts—to amend current land-use bylaws governing the zone where the convention centre will be erected (currently an iconic hole in the ground across from Durty Nelly’s and The Seahorse). That could mean losing a portion of Grafton Street, which developers would like to incorporate into the building design, selling and privatizing the street in the process.
This came after an excruciating public hearing that lasted over four hours. The majority of speakers were against the amendment.
After the third hour councillor David Hendsbee kept shouting that, in his opinion, he was done hearing what the public had to say and that council should just vote on the damn thing. To mayor Mike Savage’s great credit, he was able to calmly and repeatedly explain that proper procedure had to be followed.
The public in attendance did not behave much better. There were wild accusations of corruption, storming-off in a stream of swearing, crowd hissing—all in addition to rampant deviation from the topic of discussion. At one point the valiant commissionaire was incited to yell, “No clapping! You’re not in a theatre!”
In my limited experience there are three types of people who come to public hearings: the unconditionally positive, pragmatic skeptics and the unconditionally opposed. Last night was no exception.
Starry-eyed advocates for the Nova Centre intimated that it would herald a rebirth of epic proportions for our city’s downtown. This was tempered by skeptics who pointed to previous failed attempts at a downtown renaissance, like Scotia Square and Granville Mall. On the other end of the spectrum were the chronic opposition, who seemed to care neither where nor what the development was, believing that change is bad by default.
Selling a portion of a public city street to consolidate two blocks into giant glass towers is a drastic step. But it could potentially have a great outcome. The developers suggested it could become a sort of pedestrian public space, with bucolic greenery and benches, perfect for hosting concerts, markets and other genteel public events. After all, we wouldn’t be losing anything. That section of Grafton Street (between Sackville and Prince) is presently barren.
Another public concern addressed in this redesign was the inclusion of locals, because in consultations it was clear people worried the centre would be purely for the benefit of visitors. Creating an open cultural space for Haligonians was a way to dilute those feelings.
On the other hand, they also talked about turning the stretch into a driveway for parking-lot access, which would mean giving up one of our streets for no public gain.
In the absence of concrete details about how the street would be used, it’s not surprising that people got upset.
It should be mentioned that incorporating Grafton Street into the Nova Centre is part of a redesign of the development that happened after public consultation. The original plan featured subterranean spaces passing below the street.
For now, we wait. The next report presented to council will include specific options for what do do with Granville Street.
One thing is certain: The Nova Centre is happening. The only question is how.
Related Stories
Halifax’s XANADU
Convention centre video report
Market Street closed for three weeks because time is a flat circle
This article appears in May 1-7, 2014.
I hope that Grafton St. remains a public street. I want the overall development to happen, but I do not like this element of it.
I appreciate the author’s open-minded and balanced analysis of last night’s meeting. It is certainly a refreshing change from the “unconditionally opposed” campaigning of the previous editor.
It might have been more useful and certainly educational for Coast readers to have learned a little about what the actual objections were at Council on Tuesday (30 April).
This was the last opportunity for those who have consistently opposed the Convention Centre and its twin towers project on the grounds of both the economic as well as the aesthetic arguments (if I can characterize them that way) to mount their last ditch cases.
At the last public meeting on the matter at Dal in the Fall of 2013 the public was promised that Council (not the planners) would deal with the matters arising from the Provincial Auditor General’s report that the business case for the Convention Centre was hopelessly biased and would ensure continual losses to the taxpayers as well as even greater exposure if the wild projections for usage did not materialize. But it was not to be – another empty promise about how to keep the public quiet and in the dark.
However in a fine example of back room dealing prior to the hearing the fix seemed to be well in. Very few questions or comments were raised by Mayor and Council, very few of the real and well argued points against the project were addressed. The case against was completely ignored or deemed beyond the deliberately narrow limits of the hearing – to the extent of shutting down the comments two well reasoned presenters Denny Blouin and Prof. Judy Haven wished to make over their vocal objections.
When in ten years the full results of this fiscal and physical folly has been made clear, where will be those who supported it at Council and the well healed supporters who decry public expenditures except when it is to subsidize their sandbox? One went so far as to characterize Convention Centre support as akin to public investment in bridges and roadways! CFL stadium paid for by taxpayers will be the next item on this ‘think big’ agenda mark my words.
Dr. Iain C. Taylor
I was disappointed by Ms Hanlon’s coverage of this public hearing.
1) There was no ‘rampant deviation’ from the allowable topic. The downtown planning strategy that was in question clearly states (Policy 89) that changes may be made only for ‘significant” economic, social or cultural reasons. The unpleasantness at the beginning of the hearing was due to Council’s apparent ignorance of that Policy…the speakers were all aware of it and on topic.
2) i would suggest all commentators on the issue check out the actual numbers of participants in the much vaunted public participation process, especially the provincial series of meetings in the summer of 2012. I attended the one in Wolfville and there were maybe 6-8 members of the public present.
3) As for the ‘chronic opposition’ of which I am obviously a member: as a group, and individually, the members of the Coalition to Save the View have, for the last five years studied all aspects of the convention industry and the economics of this project. economics of this project and they are disastrous. I am willing to share any of these with you. And please drop the insulting and demeaning repetition of the idea that citizens who do their research are some chronic opposition to be dismissed. That is simply lousy journalism.
I was at the hearing and spoke before council. Was I paid attention to? No-Hensbee was red as a lobster and Gloria MacLusky was laughing at me! I just got up and riffed for five minutes.
One of the presenters was treated in a way I can only think of as abusive.
And Ramia’s “ethnic supporters” were there! Indeed, it looks that Nova Centre is on the way-now on to the stadium at Shannon Park! Savage seems to be lining that up now. Wasting money on ugly, meaningless “public” projects that we taxpayers will be paying for from now on! How I hate this place!
I was most disappointed in the coverage by Ariane Hanlon. If she was not familiar with Policy 89 by the time she wrote her piece then she, like Regional Council, had not done her homework and was not listening during the public’s presentations. Ms Hanlon is not a Tim Bousquet. Reality no longer ‘Bites” at The Coast I fear.
While Ms Hanlon and members of Regional Council may complain that they were no wiser after suffering through the April 29th Public Hearing on the convention centre they were at least better informed.
Alan Ruffman
Ferguson’s Cove
I love the way all the “Save the View” people are here complaining that the author is a terrible journalist and “not Tim Bouquet” because she gave a high level overview of both sides of the discussion rather than writing a completely biased, in-depth article focussing only on their side of the argument.
Very, very revealing commentary from you folks. Thanks.